Allowed¶44

Sri Nishant Sheoran v. State by Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2025CRL.P/678/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 482 Cr.P.C.; quashing of FIR on settlement/compromise; matrimonial dispute between spouses; joint application under Section 320 Cr.P.C.; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466; ends of justice; prevention of abuse of process; predominantly civil character of criminal case; Crime No.185/2021, Mico Layout Police, Bengaluru; Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC; High Court of Karnataka; CRL.P No. 678 of 2022; Mohammad Nawaz, J.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; proceedings arising out of Cr.No.185/2021 registered at Mico Layout Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC quashed; pending I.A.No.1/2023 disposed of. ¶44

Sri Nishant Sheoran Vs State by Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR and proceedings arising out of Crime No.185/2021 (Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC) against the petitioner should be quashed in view of the unconditional amicable settlement between the petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant.

¶41

Court's answer

It is well settled that criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions, matrimonial relationship or family disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves; following Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the guiding factors are securing the ends of justice and preventing abuse of the process of any court.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

On the facts, the dispute between the husband-petitioner and wife-complainant having been amicably and unconditionally resolved, and respondent No.2 being unwilling to pursue the matter, no purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner; hence the petition was allowed and the proceedings arising out of Cr.No.185/2021 were quashed.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR in Crime No.185/2021 of Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru (Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC) arising from a complaint by respondent No.2, the petitioner's wife, alleging trespass, assault and attempt to abduct on 30.7.2021. Parties filed a joint petition under Section 320 Cr.P.C.; respondent No.2, present in Court, stated the dispute was unconditionally and amicably settled and she did not wish to pursue the matter. Relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, and the settled position that criminal cases of overwhelming and predominantly civil character arising out of matrimonial or family disputes should be quashed once the parties have resolved their entire disputes, the Court held no purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings. Petition allowed; FIR proceedings quashed; pending I.A.No.1/2023 disposed of.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:9249 CRL.P No. 678 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 678 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. NISHANT SHEORAN S/O SULTAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.D-3/9, GF-A, ARDEE CITY, SECTOR-52, GURUGRAM-122 001, HARYANA STATE. ALSO AT H.NO.1597/31, CHOTU RAM COLONY, NEAR NEW POLICE LINE, GOHANA ROAD, SONEPAT, HARYANA STATE-131 001.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NAIK VENKATARAMAN NAGAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY KARNATAKA BY MICO LAYOUT POLICE, BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

SMT. NEHA GOYAT W/O SRI. NISHANTH SHEORAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT H.NO.1225, SECTOR-7,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9249 CRL.P No. 678 of 2022

¶17

PANCHAKULA, HARYANA STATE.

¶18

ALSO AT HOUSE NO.6, 2^ND FLOOR, 37^TH MAIN, K.A.S. COLONY, B.T.M 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 068.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. B.C.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRIME NO.185/2021, REGISTERED BY THE MICO LAYOUT POLICE, BENGALURU (RESPONDENT) AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 506, 34, 504, 452, 323 IPC, (ON THE FILE OF 6^TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU AND QUASH THE FIRST INFROMATION REPORT AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.185/2021, REGISTERED BY THE MICO LAYOUT POLICE, BENGALURU (RESPONDENT NO.1) AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 506, 34, 504, 452, 323 OF IPC, (ON THE FILE OF THE 6^TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:9249 CRL.P No. 678 of 2022

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner praying to quash the FIR registered against him in Cr.No.185/2021 at Mico Layout police station for offences punishable under Section 323, 452, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶28

In the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, she has alleged that on 30.7.2021 at about 10.00 p.m., petitioner and others trespassed into her house, abused, assaulted and tried to abduct her etc.

¶29

A petition is filed under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. signed by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 as well as respective parties, who are present before the Court.

¶30

It is stated that the petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant are husband and wife and they have

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:9249 CRL.P No. 678 of 2022

¶33

amicably resolved their dispute unconditionally and are not interested in involving in any litigation, accordingly respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw the case.

¶34

Respondent No.2/defacto complainant, who

¶35

is present before the Court submits that the matter has been amicably settled and she is not willing to pursue the matter any further.

¶36

In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of

¶37

Punjab & Anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, it is 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 to (i) secure ends of justice, or (ii) prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶38

It is well settled that, the criminal cases having overwhelming and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9249 CRL.P No. 678 of 2022

¶40

should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

¶41

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the matter having been amicably resolved by the parties, no purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. Petition is allowed.

¶44

ii. Proceedings arising out of Cr.No.185/2021 registered at Mico Layout Police Station for offence punishable under Section 323, 452, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC are quashed.

¶45

iii. Pending I.A.No.1/2023 is disposed of.

¶46

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶47

TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44 Ct:ar

Sri Nishant Sheoran v. State by Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nishant Sheoran v. State by Karnataka

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

Mrs. Vanitha Babu Vs Mr. M. Krishnakumar

Srinivasa Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Palanisamy Selvaraj Vs Parijatha Traders

M/S Pavithra Hardware and Electricals Vs M/S Gulshan Trading Company

Sri. Rakesh. K Vs State by

Smt. Eramma Vs State by Regional Transport Officer