Kalpesh Kothari Vs State of Karnataka

KALPESH KOTHARI S/O DINESH KOTHARI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.102, HARI NIVASA, 51^ST APARTMENT, SB SAMJA ROAD, KANKAPURA ROAD, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004.

¶10

DINESH KOTHARI S/O SUKHARAJAJI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

BHARATHI KOTHARI W/O DINESH KOTHARI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶13

NO.2 AND 3 RESIDING AT WARD NO.16, MARKET GALLI, JAMAKHANDI, BAGALKOT-587 301.

¶14

SHAMA KOTHARI D/O DINESH KOTHARI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, C/O DINESH KOTHARI, WARD NO.16, MARKET GALLI, JAMAKHANDI, BAGALKOT-587 301.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY KUM./SMT. VAISHNAVI S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42357 CRL.P No. 8642 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, MYSORE, REP BY AG.

¶21

SMT. SONAM J JAIN W/O KALPESH KOTHARI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.303, SHATRUNJAYA A WING, ADESHWARVATIKA, BANNUR ROAD, NAZARABAD, MYSORE CITY-570 010.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; KUM./SMT. ANAGHA S. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.29/2024 ON THE FILE OF 7^TH ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AND JMFC COURT, MYSURU WHEREIN THE 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE HAVE REGISTERED CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:42357 CRL.P No. 8642 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Petitioners are seeking to quash the proceedings arising out of Crime No.29/2024 of Mysuru City Women Police Station now pending on the file of the VII Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC Court, Mysuru.

¶32

The aforementioned case is registered on a complaint lodged by respondent No.2 herein, for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶33

An application is filed under Section 320(2) r/w 482 of Cr.P.C., along with the affidavit of respondent No.2.

¶34

Para 2 to 4 of the affidavit are extracted hereunder:

¶35

“2. I state that I had lodged Complaint before 1^st Respondent against Petitioners and the same has been registered in Crime No.29/2025 against the Petitioners for offences punishable under sections 498-A and 506 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42357 CRL.P No. 8642 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Dowry Prohibition Act against my parents, sister and myself and said case is pending on the file of 7^th Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC Court, Mysuru.

¶39

3. I state that myself and Petitioner No.1 had filed M.С.No.1279/2025 on the file of V Additional Family Court, Bangalore. The matter was referred to Bangalore Mediation Center and settled amicably as per terms of the Mediation Report.

¶40

4. I state that I have no objection to quash the entire proceedings against the Petitioners.”

¶41

It is submitted that the parties have entered into a settlement before the Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C.No.1279/2025 and in terms of the settlement, respondent No.2/defacto complainant has agreed to close the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

¶42

Para 9 of the memorandum of settlement filed before the Family Court under Section 89 of CPC r/w Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005, is extracted hereunder:

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42357 CRL.P No. 8642 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

“9. The 2^nd petitioner also agreed to cooperate for closing/quashing the Crime No.29/2024 pending before VII Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division) and JMFC, Mysuru, filed under section 498A and 3 & 4 DP Act, filed against the 1^st petitioner and family members.”

¶46

The matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute. Petitioner and respondent No.2/defacto complainant are present before the Court. They both acknowledge the fact that the matter has been settled. Respondent No.2 would submit that in view of the settlement she is not interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings any further.

¶47

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,

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42357 CRL.P No. 8642 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the

¶51

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,

¶52

Section 320 of the Code, would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR.’

¶53

This Court is of the considered view that in view

¶54

of the settlement between the parties, no 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 application and quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

Application is allowed. Consequently, the petition is

¶57

allowed.

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:42357 CRL.P No. 8642 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

The entire proceedings arising out of Crime

¶61

No.29/2024 of Mysuru City Women Police Station, Mysuru City pending on the file of the Court of VII Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) & JMFC Court, Mysuru are quashed.

¶62

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶63

HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Kalpesh Kothari v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalpesh Kothari 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash @ Balaji @ Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Thankachan Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt Shakila P Shetty Vs Sri Ramesh K K

Sri Nikil @ Nikil Kumar R Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Syeda Yasmeen Bano Vs State of Karnataka

Kalpesh Kothari, Vs State of Karnataka