A Sumangalamma @ Sumangala Vs State of Karnataka by

A SUMANGALAMMA @ SUMANGALA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS W/O A. BASAVANA GOUDA W#20, 4^TH LINK ROAD LEFT SIDE 1^ST MAIN, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BEHIND SANGAMESHWARA TEMPLE, BALLARI - 583103

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SHIVARAMA REDDY.A AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O A. BASAVANA GOUDA 180/1, SANGANAKALLU ROAD BASAVESHWARANAGAR BALLARI - 583101

¶16

H. VIJAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O H. SHARANAPPA NEAR KENCHAMMA TEMPLE WARD NO. 1, SINGANAHAL KOPPAL-583282

¶17

SARASWATH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:53099 CRL.P No. 6444 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 17012 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

W/O M.R. RUDRESH GUDDADARANGAVVANAHALLI CHALLAKERE-577502 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT

¶21

A. SRIDEVI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS C/O LINGAREDDY LIG 336, 1^ST FLOOR, WARD-21 NOKA ROAD, KHB COLONY GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI - 583103

¶22

LOKA REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O A. BASAVANA GOUDA

¶23

VISHALAKSHI PATIL @ VISHALAKSHI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS W/O A. LOKA REDDY SL.NOS. 6 & 7 ARE HAVING ADDRESS AT WARD NO. 20 4^TH LINK ROAD LEFT SIDE 1^ST MAIN, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BEHIND SANGAMESHWARA TEMPLE,

¶24

BALLARI - 583103

¶25

…PETITIONERS

¶26

(BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BENGALURU-560001

¶29

M KAVITHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS W/O A. SHIVALINGA REDDY

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:53099 CRL.P No. 6444 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 17012 of 2025

¶31

3 -

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

#101, C BLOCK REDIAN KEREL NEAR NAYANDAHALLI BUS STOP METRO LAYOUT, MYSOORU ROAD BENGALURU 560026

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI. T.C MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶36

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR. 99/2024 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE U/S 498A OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT, ON THE FILE OF THE XLVI ACMM, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶37

IN CRL.P NO. 17012/2025

¶38

BETWEEN:

¶39

A SHIVALINGA REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O A BASAVANAGOUDA #15/3, GROUND FLOOR, 1^ST A MAIN VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560040.

¶40

...PETITIONER

¶41

(BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE)

¶42

AND:

¶43

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BYARAYANAPURA POLICE STATION BANGALORE DISTRICT

¶44

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BANGALORE 560001.

¶45

4 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:53099 CRL.P No. 6444 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 17012 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

2. SMT KAVITHA

¶49

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS W/O A SHIVALINGA REDDY 101 C-BLOCK REDIAN KEREL NEAR NAYANDAHALLI BUS STOP METRO LAYOUT, MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE 560026.

¶50

...RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI. T.C MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶52

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.99/2024 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 48A OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT ON THE FILE OF THE XLVI A.C.M.M NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶53

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶54

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶55

ORAL ORDER

¶56

These two petitions arise out of Crime No.99/2024 of Byatarayanapura Police Station, Bangalore City. Petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings.

¶57

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53099 CRL.P No. 6444 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 17012 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

FIR is registered on the basis of a complaint

¶60

lodged by the 2^nd respondent for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶61

In both the petitions joint memos are filed reporting settlement. It is stated that the respondent No.2/ de-facto complainant and the petitioners have settled all their disputes, wherein respondent No.2 and petitioner in Criminal Petition No.17012/2025 have agreed to continue their marital life and therefore, she is not inclined to continue the above complaint lodged by her.

¶62

Petitioner in Criminal Petition No.17012/2025 and respondent No.2/de-facto complainant are present before the court. They acknowledge the settlement taken place between them. Respondent no. 2 submits that she is now living with the petitioner and they have resolved all their family disputes and therefore, not interested to

¶63

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53099 CRL.P No. 6444 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 17012 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

proceed with the case any further and she has no objection to quash the entire proceedings.

¶66

The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.

¶67

6444/2024 are represented by the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 17012/2025. A Special Power of Attorney executed by them is enclosed along with the joint memo.

¶68

Joint memo filed in both the petitions as well as

¶69

the Special Power of Attorney are placed on record.

¶70

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and Others V. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held that when the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis, petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be:(i) to secure the ends of justice; or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It is further held that the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:53099 CRL.P No. 6444 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 17012 of 2025

¶72

7 -

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

¶75

8. In B.S.Joshi and others V. State of Haryana

¶76

and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the Hon’ble

¶77

Supreme Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the code to quash criminal proceedings, where dispute is of a private nature and the compromise is entered into between the parties.

¶78

The matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute,

¶79

wherein the parties have amicably settled the matter. As per the joint memo and the submission made by the parties, the respondent No.2/de-facto complainant is living with her husband and she has no objection to quash the proceedings. Hence, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings initiated by her against the petitioners. To meet the ends of justice, it is just and

¶80

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:53099 CRL.P No. 6444 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 17012 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

proper to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the following;

¶83

ORDER

¶84

(i) Criminal petition is allowed .

¶85

(ii) The entire proceedings arising out of FIR No.99/2024, registered at Byatarayanapura Police Station, Bangalore City for the offence under Section 498A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prevention Act, 1961, are quashed.

¶86

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

¶87

JUDGE

¶88

KLY CT: JL

A Sumangalamma @ Sumangala v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Sumangalamma @ Sumangala v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash @ Balaji @ Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Ubaid B S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kysar Khan @ Appu @ Khaiser Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Gagan Jayaprakash Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Raviraj Chedga Vs State of Karnataka