Nikhil Jain Vs State by

NIKHIL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. DEEPAK BHOJANI, R/AT NO.4/6, LEELA PALACE, EAST STREET, A.T. HALLI, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. SUKUMARAN G, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

SHILPA JAIN, SMT. SHILPA JAIN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O SRI. NIKHIL JAIN, D/O SRI. PARASMAL LOONKARD,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:9462 CRL.P No. 8814 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6344 of 2021

¶21

R/AT NO. 4/6, 'LEELA PALACE', EAST STREET, NO. 001, G.F.A.T. HALLI, AKKI THIMMANAHALLI, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CASE IN C.C.NO.53146/2021 DATED 01.07.2021 U/S 448, 323, 384, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE ASHOKNAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU AGAINST THIS PETITIONERS.

¶25

IN CRL.P NO. 6344/2021

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

NIKHIL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. DEEPAK BHOJANI, R/AT NO.4/6, LEELA PALACE, EAST STREET, A.T. HALLI, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶28

...PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SRI. SUKUMARAN G, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

STATE BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:9462 CRL.P No. 8814 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6344 of 2021

¶34

SMT. SHILPA JAIN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O SRI. NIKHIL JAIN, D/O SRI. PARASMAL LOONKARD, R/AT NO. 4/6, 'LEELA PALACE', EAST STREET, AKKI THIMMANAHALLI, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶35

...RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)

¶37

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.54036/2020 DATED 29.09.2020 U/S 498A, 323, 506, 34 OF IPC, THE FIRST RESPONDENT/THE ASHOK NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 29TH A.C.M.M., BENGALURU OF ALL THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

¶38

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

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

Criminal Petition No.8814/2021 arises out of Crime No.27/2020 of Ashoknagar Police Station, Bengaluru city, registered for offences punishable under Section 448, 323, 324, 384, 506, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶42

Criminal Petition No.6344/2021 arises out of Crime No.347/2019 of Ashoknagar Police Station,

¶43

4 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:9462 CRL.P No. 8814 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6344 of 2021

¶45

Bengaluru city, registered for offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶46

Both the cases came to be registered on a complaint lodged by respondent No.2 - wife of the petitioner against the petitioner and two others. Charge sheet is filed in both the cases against petitioner alone.

¶47

It is averred by respondent No.2 that her marriage with the petitioner took place on 19.01.2006 as per Hindu customs and from the wedlock they have two daughters. Their relationship got strained and she was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner etc.,

¶48

The learned counsel for petitioner has filed certified copy of the memorandum of the settlement entered between the petitioner and respondent No.2 before the family Court at Bengaluru in M.C.No.1246/2020. It is submitted that in view of the settlement entered between the parties, their marriage has been dissolved.

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9462 CRL.P No. 8814 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6344 of 2021

¶50

Paragraph-8 of the memorandum of settlement

¶51

is extracted here under:

¶52

" In view of the settlement, the respondent has agreed to co-operate in closing / quashing Criminal Petition No.8814/2021 in C.C.No.53146/2021 and Criminal Petition No.6344/2021 in C.C.No.54036/2020 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru."

¶53

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs.

¶54

State of Panjab , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has

¶55

held that the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised to achieve either of twin objects namely (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court, (ii) to do real, complete and substantial justice.

¶56

8. In B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana

¶57

and another , reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and in exercise of inherent powers, High Court can quash

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9462 CRL.P No. 8814 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6344 of 2021

¶59

criminal proceedings and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

¶60

It is well settled that the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves.

¶61

In view of the settlement taken place between the parties before the family Court, and the respondent No.2 / de-facto complainant having agreed to quash the proceedings, no purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial Court. Hence, the following;

¶62

O R D E R

¶63

i) The criminal petitions are allowed .

¶64

ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.54036/2020 and C.C.No.53146/2021 pending on the file of

¶65