Allowed¶48

Mr Vimal Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Apr 2025CRL.P/8079/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR Crime No.43/2020 Devaraja Police Station Mysuru and proceedings in C.C.No.5143/2022 JMFC-IV Mysuru; offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 IPC; petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; joint application under Section 528 BNSS 2023 for compounding; settlement between petitioner and defacto complainant (wife); affidavits in support; divorce decree dated 07.03.2023 in M.C.No.70/2023 III Additional Principal Family Court Mysuru; charge sheet dated 06.06.2022; complaint/FIR dated 19.06.2020; Mohammad Nawaz J.; High Court of Karnataka, decided 03.04.2025; corrected vide Chamber Order dated 15.4.2025.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.43/2020 and entire proceedings in C.C.No.5143/2022 quashed; application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking permission to compound the offence allowed. ¶48

Mr Vimal Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR in Crime No.43/2020 and entire proceedings in C.C.No.5143/2022 quashed; application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking permission to compound the offence allowed.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 19.06.2020, charge sheet dated 06.06.2022 and entire proceedings in C.C.No.5143/2022 (Crime No.43/2020) for offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC should be quashed, the parties having applied under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for permission to compound the offence in view of their settlement.

¶30

Court's answer

In view of the settlement and the entire dispute having been resolved, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would serve no purpose and would be a futile exercise; to meet the ends of justice it is just and necessary to quash the proceedings.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed and the FIR and entire proceedings in C.C.No.5143/2022 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class-IV, Mysuru, registered for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC, are quashed; the application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is also allowed.

¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (CRL.P No. 8079 of 2022) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS, 2023 — Offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC arising out of Crime No.43/2020, Devaraja Police Station, Mysuru, pending as C.C.No.5143/2022 before Judicial Magistrate First Class IV, Mysuru — Petitioner and respondent No.2 (defacto complainant, his wife) jointly applied for permission to compound the offence and quash the FIR, stating the disputes were resolved through intervention of well-wishers and supported by affidavits — Marriage between the parties had been dissolved by order dated 07.03.2023 in M.C.No.70/2023 (III Additional Principal Family Court, Mysuru) — Held that continuation of proceedings after settlement would be futile and quashing was necessary to meet the ends of justice — Petition and application allowed; FIR and entire proceedings quashed (Mohammad Nawaz, J.).

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14130 CRL.P No. 8079 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8079 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) /

¶6

528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. VIMAL KUMAR S/O SRI HEMARAM AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1478/L8 8^TH CROSS IRWIN ROAD LAKSHKAR MOHALLA MYSURU – 570 001.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PARASHURAM A.L., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEVARAJA POLICE STATION MYSURU REPRESENTEDS BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560001.

¶14

MRS. BHARATHI W/O MR VIMAL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 31/1, 1^ST MAIN JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU – 570 012.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14130 CRL.P No. 8079 of 2022

¶17

(BY SMT. AISHWARYA S.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2;

¶18

SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.06.2020 (ANNEXURE-B) THE FIR DATED 19.06.2020 (ANNEXURE-A) THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 06.06.2022 (ANNEXURE-C) AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.5143/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS IV MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.465,468,471,420 OF IPC 1860.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Proceedings arising out of Crime No.43/2020 registered at Devaraja Police Station for offences punishable under Section 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class IV, Mysuru in C.C.No.5143/2022 is challenged in this petition preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14130 CRL.P No. 8079 of 2022

¶25

Based on a complaint lodged by respondent

¶26

No.2, the aforementioned crime was registered against the petitioner and upon investigation charge sheet has been filed.

¶27

Petitioner as well as respondent No.2 are present before the Court.

¶28

Learned counsel Smt.Aishwarya S.M. has filed

¶29

vakalath for respondent No.2/complainant. The same is taken on record.

¶30

An application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed signed by both petitioner as well as respondent No.2 and the respective learned counsel appearing for them, seeking permission of the Court to compound the offence and thereby to quash the aforementioned FIR.

¶31

It is stated that respondent No.2/defacto complainant and the petitioner have resolved the disputes pursuant to intervention by well-wishers, as such

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:14130 CRL.P No. 8079 of 2022

¶34

respondent No.2 has consented not to prosecute the impugned proceedings.

¶35

Petitioner as well as respondent No.2 have filed

¶36

affidavits in support of the application.

¶37

Para 4 of the affidavit of respondent No.2 reads

¶38

as under:

¶39

“4. I state that in view of the settlement between

¶40

me and the Respondent No.2, the latter has expressed no objection for quashing of chargesheet and proceedings in C.C.No.5143/2022 and the FIR in Crime No.43/2020 for offences under Section 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On account of the voluntary nature of compromise between me and Respondent No.2 in view of our settlement, it would be just and necessary for this Hon’ble Court to quash the proceedings. ”

¶41

Respondent No.2 is the wife of the petitioner. It

¶42

is stated that their marriage has been dissolved by an order dated 07.03.2023 passed by the learned III Additional Principal Family Court, Mysuru in M.C.No.70/2023.

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14130 CRL.P No. 8079 of 2022

¶44

In view of the settlement and the entire dispute

¶45

having been resolved, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner will not serve any purpose as it is a futile exercise. Hence, to meet the ends of justice, it is just and necessary to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

Petition is allowed.

¶48

The FIR and entire proceedings in *C.C.No.5143/2022 pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class-IV, Mysuru registered for offences punishable under Section 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC is quashed.

¶49

Application is allowed.

¶50

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶51

HB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

¶52

Corrected vide Chamber Order dated 15.4.2025.

Mr Vimal Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Vimal Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. K v Venugopala Vs State of Karnataka

K Satish Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M Nagaraju Vs State by Soladevanahalli Police

Subana Baldar Vs State of Karnataka

Balu K Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Radhakrishna Reddy Vs State of Karnataka