Allowed¶68

Noorjahan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2025CRL.P/8360/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR Crime No.165/2024 (Section 498A IPC), Thirthahalli Police Station, and proceedings in C.C.No.736/2025 under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS; amicable matrimonial settlement; Mubaraknama dissolution; Rs.14 lakhs permanent alimony; retention of Mahr ornaments (142 grams) and 5 sovereigns; non-compoundable matrimonial offence; Section 320 of the Code no bar; Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(2) Crimes 90 (SC) relied on; Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Mohammad Nawaz, J.; order dated 30.10.2025; CRL.P No. 8360 of 2024 c/w CRL.P No. 14939 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Applications to compound the offence allowed in both petitions; petitions allowed; FIR in Crime No.165/2024 of Thirthahalli Police Station and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.736/2025 quashed. ¶68

Noorjahan Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applications to compound the offence allowed in both petitions; petitions allowed; FIR in Crime No.165/2024 of Thirthahalli Police Station and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.736/2025 quashed.

¶68

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.165/2024 and the consequent proceedings pending before the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Thirthahalli, arising from a matrimonial dispute since amicably settled, ought to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶51

Court's answer

As the matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute in which respondent No.2/defacto complainant has agreed and the parties have settled all disputes, no purpose would be served in keeping or continuing the criminal proceedings; to secure the ends of justice it is just and proper to allow the applications and quash the proceedings.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

Adopting the Supreme Court's ruling in Jitendra Raghuvanshi (2013(2) Crimes 90 (SC)), the Court proceeded on the basis that genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes ought to be encouraged, and that even non-compoundable offences arising from matrimonial disputes, where the parties have settled amicably and without pressure, Section 320 of the Code is not a bar to quashing of the FIR.

¶61

Key takeaways

The entire proceedings in C.C.No.736/2025 arising out of Crime No.165/2024 of Thirthahalli Police Station, Shivamogga, pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Thirthahalli, are quashed.ratio¶69

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Mohammad Nawaz, J.), by oral order dated 30-10-2025, allowed two connected criminal petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) filed by the husband (accused No.1) and four relatives (accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6) seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No.165/2024 of Thirthahalli Police Station (Section 498A IPC) and the consequent proceedings in C.C.No.736/2025. The marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 stood dissolved in terms of the Mubaraknama; respondent No.2 received Rs.14 lakhs as permanent alimony towards full and final settlement and agreed to retain the Mahr gold ornaments (about 142 grams) and about 5 sovereigns of gift items. Relying on Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(2) Crimes 90 (SC), the Court held that genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes should be encouraged, and that even non-compoundable offences arising from matrimonial disputes, if settled amicably and without pressure, Section 320 of the Code is no bar to quashing; accordingly, the applications to compound were allowed and the entire proceedings were quashed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:43496 CRL.P No. 8360 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 14939 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8360 OF 2024

¶9

C/W

¶10

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14939 OF 2025

¶11

IN CRL.P No. 8360/2024

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

NOORJAHAN

¶14

W/O S. SHEKABBA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.GL 2-34, BDGAH ROAD, SN COTTAGE, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575 030.

¶15

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

SURAYYA PARVEEN @ SURAIH W/O BADRUL MUNEER, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.22-9-1318/8, LEEWEL POST OFFICE, S N COTTAGE, BROOKS VALLEY LAYOUT, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575 001.

¶17

FAKIZA PARVEEN @ FAZIYA C/O MOHAMMED SAMEER ALI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.17-17-1335/55, IVORY TOWERS FLAT NO.106, S.L. MATHIAS ROAD, ATTAVAR, FALNIR, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575 001.

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43496 CRL.P No. 8360 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 14939 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ABDUL RAHIMAN S/O BADAGA BYAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.45, NONABURU, THIRTHAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 414.

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE (P/H))

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THIRTHAHALLI POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE–560 001.

¶25

SHABANA BHANU W/O MOHAMMAD SADIQ, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.45, NONABURU, THIRTHAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 414.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1 (P/H); SRI. DEVI PRASAD K., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (P/H))

¶28

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.165/2024 BY THE RESPONDENT THIRTHAHALLI POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, THIRTHAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT OF THIRTHAHALLI POLICE STATION.

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:43496 CRL.P No. 8360 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 14939 of 2025

¶30

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

IN CRL.P NO. 14939/2025

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

MOHAMMED SADIQ S/O SOORALPADY SHEIKABBA, AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.22-9-1318/8, LEEWEL POST OFFICE, S N COTTAGE, BROOKS VALLEY LAYOUT, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575 001.

¶35

...PETITIONER

¶36

(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE (P/H))

¶37

AND:

¶38

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THIRTHAHALLI POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶39

SHABANA BHANU W/O MOHAMMAD SADIQ, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.45, NONABURU, THIRTHAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 414.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1 (P/H))

¶42

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.736/2025 BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, THIRTHAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT OF THIRTHAHALLI POLICE STATION.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:43496 CRL.P No. 8360 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 14939 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

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

¶47

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶48

ORAL ORDER

¶49

Both these petitions arise out of FIR in Crime No.165/2024 of Tirthahalli, Police Station, Shivamogga registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC.

¶50

Based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, aforementioned case is registered against accused Nos.1 to 6. Petitioners in Crl.P No.8360/2024 are accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 and petitioner in Crl.P No.14939/2025 is accused No.1.

¶51

Petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR/complaint, and the consequent proceedings pending against them before the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC Court, Thirthahalli, Shivamogga.

¶52

Separate applications are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the learned counsel for petitioners, to

¶53

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43496 CRL.P No. 8360 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 14939 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

permit the parties to compound the offence and to quash the FIR and chargesheet.

¶56

It is stated that the family members of both side have decided to resolve the dispute and marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 has been dissolved in terms of the conditions of Mubaraknama. It is also stated that respondent No.2/defacto complainant has received a permanent alimony of Rs.14 lakhs from accused No.1 without any further claim, towards full and final settlement. It is further stated that, the gold ornaments which was given as Mahr during the marriage weighing about 142 grams and other gift items about 5 sovereigns is in position of respondent No.2 and the parties have agreed that respondent No.2 to retain those jewelleries as permanent alimony.

¶57

Respondents No.2 and all the petitioners except petitioner No.1 in Crl.P No. 8360/2024 are present before the Court. Respondent No.2 submits that the matter has been settled and in view of the settlement, she is not

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43496 CRL.P No. 8360 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 14939 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

interested in pursuing the matter any further and she has no objection to quash the proceedings.

¶61

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another reported in 2013(2) Crimes 90(SC), has held that ‘the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., are wide and unfettered. It is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that, the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code, would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR.’

¶62

The matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute,

¶63

wherein respondent No.2/defacto complainant has agreed to and the parties have settled all the disputes. Hence, no

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:43496 CRL.P No. 8360 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 14939 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

purpose will be served in keeping or continuing the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners. To secure the ends of justice, it is just and proper to allow the applications and quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

Applications filed in both the petitions are allowed. Consequently, petitions are allowed .

¶69

The entire proceedings arising out of Crime No.165/2024 of Thirthahalli Police Station, Shivamogga, now pending in C.C.No.736/2025 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Thirthahalli, Shivamogga are quashed.

¶70

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶71

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Noorjahan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noorjahan v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Country Club (India) Limited Vs Sri Nallappa

Mohammed Arif Mohiuddin @ Arif Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shashikanth Bhat Vs Sri Yashvanth Shetty

Sri B Guruprasad Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Sudheendra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K M Narasimhe Gowda Vs State of Karnataka