Disposed¶43

Mr. Mohan Kumar v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2025CRL.P/9334/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on matrimonial settlement; FIR No.138/2025 Puttenahalli Police Station; S.85 BNS 2023 dowry offence r/w Ss.3-4 Dowry Prohibition Act 1961; husband-wife compromise via Joint Memo; complainant-wife withdrew allegations in person; FIR quashed in relation to petitioner; petition disposed of 03.07.2025; CRL.P No. 9334 of 2025; Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar; Karnataka High Court; S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS jurisdiction; XXX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bengaluru City.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the Complaint/FIR in Crime No.138/2025 of Puttenahalli Police Station in relation to the petitioner, with the petition disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo dated 03.07.2025. ¶43

Mr. Mohan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the Complaint/FIR in Crime No.138/2025 of Puttenahalli Police Station in relation to the petitioner, with the petition disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo dated 03.07.2025.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.138/2025 of Puttenahalli Police Station, registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 85 of the BNS, 2023 r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, ought to be quashed in view of the settlement between the petitioner and respondent No.2.

¶34

Court's answer

In view of the settlement between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent evidenced by the Joint Memo, the criminal petition is disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo dated 03.07.2025.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The Complaint/FIR in Crime No.138/2025 dated 11.05.2025 of Puttenahalli Police Station, registered for offences under Section 85 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and pending before the XXX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City, stands quashed in relation to the petitioner.

¶43

Key takeaways

Respondent No.2, the complainant and wife of the petitioner, being physically present, submitted that she intends to withdraw all allegations against her husband pending in FIR Crime No.138/2025 and sought quashing of the impugned proceedings; the submission was placed on record and both parties admitted the contents of the Joint Memo.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS) by the husband (accused No.1) seeking quashing of FIR No.138/2025 of Puttenahalli Police Station, registered for offences under S.85 BNS, 2023 r/w Ss.3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending before the XXX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City. Petitioner and respondent No.2 (complainant-wife) filed a Joint Memo recording an out-of-court settlement and reconciliation; respondent No.2 appeared in person, identified the petitioner as her husband, and stated she intended to withdraw all allegations. Treating the settlement as sufficient, the High Court disposed of the petition in terms of the Joint Memo dated 03.07.2025 and quashed the FIR/complaint in relation to the petitioner.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:23995 CRL.P No. 9334 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9334 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. MOHAN KUMAR S/O VASANTHKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO B4-901,

¶9

L AND T SOUTH CITY APARTMENT, AREKERE MICO LAYOUT, JP NAGARA, 7TH STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 076

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. DORE RAJ B. H., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001

¶16

MRS. AMRUTHA G, FLAT NO B4-901 L & T SOUTH CITY APARTMENT, ARAKERE, MICO LAYOUT, JP NAGAR 7^TH PHASE, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA – 560 076

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. B. N. JAGADEESH, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SMT. DIVYA B. S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE FIR IN CR.NO.0138/2025 PENDING BEFORE THE XXX ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 85 OF THE BNS, 2023 R/W

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:23995 CRL.P No. 9334 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 OF PUTTENAHALLI P.S.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following relief:-

¶28

“ a) Quash the entire FIR in Crime No.138/2025 pending before the XXX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 of Puttenahalli Police Station.

¶29

b) To grant such other relief/s deems fit to grant by this Hon’ble Court on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner – accused No.1 and learned counsel for 2^nd respondent – complainant have filed a Joint Memo duly signed by the petitioner, 2^nd respondent and their respective counsel and the same is taken on record.

¶31

Respondent No.2 – Smt. Amrutha G., is physically present along with her husband – petitioner and both of them have produced their identity cards along with the memo filed by learned

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23995 CRL.P No. 9334 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

counsel for the petitioner. The same are taken on record. Petitioner and learned counsel for the petitioner are physically present before the Court. Petitioner identifies respondent No.2 as his wife and respondent in turn identifies the petitioner as her husband. Respondent No.2, who is physically present submits that she intends to withdraw all allegations against her husband, which is currently pending in FIR in Crime No.138/2025 and the impugned proceedings may be quashed. The aforesaid submission is placed on record. Petitioner and respondent No.2 admit the contents of the Joint Memo, which reads as under:-

¶35

“ JOINT MEMO

¶36

The undersigned counsels appearing for petitioner and respondent jointly submit that the petitioner and respondent have settled their dispute out of Court and have reconciled their difference to live jointly together in the marriage, the complaint lodged by the respondent wants to withdraw and both pray for quashing of the FIR 138/2025 registered by Puttenahalli Police Station, the same may be quashed in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶37

In view of the aforesaid settlement entered into

¶38

between the petitioner and 2^nd respondent, I pass the following:

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23995 CRL.P No. 9334 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) The petition is disposed of in terms of Joint Memo dated 03.07.2025.

¶43

(ii) The Complaint / FIR in Crime No.138/2025 dated 11.05.2025 of Puttenahalli Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 85 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 pending on the file of the XXX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City, in relation to the petitioner, are hereby quashed.

¶44

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶45

MDS

¶46

List No.: 11 Sl No.: 4

Mr. Mohan Kumar v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mohan Kumar v. State of Karnataka by

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

Jithendra Kumar Vs State by

Rohan Cariappa Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Narasimhamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

Srinivas Hejamadi Tati Vs Well Doc Software Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. Abdul Rahiman Vs State by Buntwal Rural

Mali Vivek Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka by