Allowed¶42

Sri Nipun Gupta v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2025CRL.P/812/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:2972 — CRL.P No. 812 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, K. Natarajan, J., 23-01-2025. Keywords: quashing of criminal proceedings; Section 528 BNSS; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Sections 498-A and 506 IPC; Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act 1961; Section 359 BNSS compromise application; joint affidavit; settlement of matrimonial dispute; permanent alimony Rs.62,50,000/-; Demand Draft payment; Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2012 CRI.L.J.4934; Parappana Agrahara Police Station; Crime No.399/2019; C.C.No.6271/2020; IX ACMM Bengaluru; proceedings quashed; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; I.A.No.1/2025 (joint compromise under Section 359 BNSS) allowed; entire proceedings in C.C.No.6271/2020 (Crime No.399/2019) pending before IX ACMM, Bengaluru, against the petitioners quashed.

Sri Nipun Gupta Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.6271/2020 (Crime No.399/2019), pending before the IX ACMM, Bengaluru, against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, ought to be quashed in view of the joint compromise/settlement between the parties. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

In view of the joint compromise between the parties and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012 CRI.L.J.4934), the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.6271/2020 require to be quashed.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The joint compromise application I.A.No.1/2025 filed under Section 359 of BNSS is allowed.

¶41

Key takeaways

The proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.6271/2020 (Crime No.399/2019) registered by Parappana Agrahara Police Station and pending on the file of the IX ACMM are quashed.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.528 BNSS / S.482 Cr.P.C.) — Quashing on compromise. Petitioners (husband and his parents, accused Nos.1 to 3) sought quashing of C.C.No.6271/2020 (Crime No.399/2019) of Parappana Agrahara Police Station, pending before the IX ACMM, Bengaluru, arising from a charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. During pendency, the parties settled the matrimonial dispute and filed a joint compromise application I.A.No.1/2025 under Section 359 of BNSS with a joint affidavit; petitioner No.1 paid Rs.62,50,000/- as permanent alimony by way of full and final settlement (₹42,00,000/- earlier and ₹20,50,000/- by Demand Draft on the date of the order, acknowledged by respondent No.2/wife). Relying on Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2012 CRI.L.J.4934 (SC), the Court allowed I.A.No.1/2025, allowed the criminal petition, and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners. (K. Natarajan, J.; decided 23 January 2025.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:2972 CRL.P No. 812 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 812 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /

¶6

528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NIPUN GUPTA S/O V. K. GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶9

SRI. V. K. GUPTA, S/O LABHU RAM GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. MAYADEVI W/O V. K. GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

ALL ARE R/AT NO.105-B, POCKET-A, DILSHAD GARDEN, NEW SEEMAPURI, DELHI - 110 095.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. RAMESH H., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SHO PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU - 560 100.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:2972 CRL.P No. 812 of 2025

¶19

AND ALSO THE OFFICE OF THE SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

SHIPRA GARG W/O NIPUN GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.B-1 VILLA, AJMERA, INFINITY APARTMENTS, ELECTRANIC CITY PHASE -1, BENGALURU - 560 100.

¶21

ASLO

¶22

PERMANENT R/AT NO.A42, SECTOR 85, FARIDABAD, HARYANA - 121 002.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. NARAYAN RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.6271/2020 (CRIME NO.399/2019) REGISTERED BY THE Ist RESPONDENT (PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION) PENDING OF THE FILE OF IX ACMM BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498-A, 506 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF DP ACT 1961.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:2972 CRL.P No. 812 of 2025

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Learned HCGP takes notice for the respondent

¶32

No.1/State. Learned counsel Sri. Narayan Rao, appears for respondent No.2.

¶33

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 528 of BNSS (482 of Cr.P.C.) for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.6271/2020 (Crime No.399/2019) registered by the Parappana Agrahara Police station, pending on the file of IX ACMM Bengaluru and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 506 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.

¶34

During the pendency of the petition, both petitioners and respondent No.2 appeared before the Court along with their counsels and filed joint compromise application on I.A.No.1/2025 under Section 359 of BNSS.

¶35

Both parties also filed joint affidavit and submits that they said to have settled the matrimonial dispute. They also submit, an amount towards permanent alimony to the

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:2972 CRL.P No. 812 of 2025

¶38

respondent No.2, has been paid. As per the settlement, the petitioner No.1 was required to pay Rs.62,50,000/- to the respondent No.2 as permanent alimony settlement, by way of full and final settlement. They already said to have paid ₹42,00,000/- and today ₹20,50,000/- was paid by way of Demand Draft and the same is received and acknowledged by the respondent No.2.

¶39

Submission of both the parties are placed on

¶40

record.

¶41

In view of joint compromise between the parties and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in 2012 CRI.L.J.4934, the criminal proceedings requires to be quashed and I.A.No.1/2025 deserves to be allowed. Hence, I.A.No.1/2025 is hereby allowed.

¶42