Allowed¶75

Sri.Raviraj Chedga v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2025WP/32199/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Mohammad Nawaz J, 15.12.2025) allows WP Nos. 32199 & 32258/2024 (GM-RES) and quashes entire proceedings in C.C.Nos. 26740/2022 (Secs. 498A, 506 IPC; Secs. 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Crime No. 67/2022) and 35421/2022 (Secs. 504, 505 IPC; Crime No. 152/2022), Basavanagudi Women PS, pending before XXXVII Addl. CJM Bengaluru, on amicable settlement of matrimonial dispute between Raviraj Chedga and Tanuja Madhav; applications under Sec. 320 r/w Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.; reliance on Jitendra Raghuvanshi 2013(2) Crimes 90(SC) and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.26740/2022 and C.C.No.35421/2022 pending on the file of the XXXVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore. ¶75

Sri.Raviraj Chedga Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.26740/2022 and C.C.No.35421/2022 pending on the file of the XXXVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore.

¶75

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings pending in C.C.No.26740/2022 and C.C.No.35421/2022 before the XXXVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, arising out of matrimonial disputes, ought to be quashed in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶69

Court's answer

Since the matters arise out of matrimonial disputes in which the parties concerned have amicably settled all the disputes, no meaningful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings pending before the trial Court; in order to secure the ends of justice, it is just and proper to quash the proceedings.

¶69

Ratio / Principle

Both writ petitions are allowed, and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.26740/2022 and C.C.No.35421/2022, pending on the file of the XXXVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore, are quashed.

¶75

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes: (i) C.C.No.26740/2022 (Crime No. 67/2022, Basavanagudi Women Police Station; Sections 498A and 506 IPC; Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) against Sri Raviraj Chedga and his parents Sri P K Chedga and Smt. Jyothi P Chedga, pursuant to cognizance/summons order dated 17.08.2022; and (ii) C.C.No.35421/2022 (Crime No.152/2022; Sections 504 and 506 IPC) against Sri Raviraj Chedga, pursuant to cognizance/summons order dated 14.11.2022, both pending before the XXXVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City. Applications under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., supported by affidavits of the parties, were filed on the ground of settlement; respondent No.2/de facto complainant (wife of petitioner No.1) stated before the Court that the entire dispute had been settled and she had no objection to quashment. Relying on Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(2) Crimes 90(SC), and Narinder Singh, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court held that, the disputes having been amicably settled, no meaningful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings, and to secure the ends of justice allowed both petitions and quashed the entire proceedings in both C.C.s. (Mohammad Nawaz, J.; 15.12.2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:54042 WP No. 32199 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32258 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO. 32199 OF 2024 (GM-RES) C/W

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 32258 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

IN WP No. 32199/2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.RAVIRAJ CHEDGA S/O P K CHEDGA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶10

SRI P K CHEDGA S/O SUBRAYA CHEDGA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,

¶11

SMT. JYOTHI P CHEDGA W/O P. K. CHEDGA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

PETITIONER NOS.1-3 ARE RESIDENTS OF: NO.304, PRUTHVI CLASSIC, 19^TH CROSS, 20^TH A MAIN, SMS LAYOUT, JP NAGAR 5^TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SANAT KUMAR H. ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. AJAY KADKOL T.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN'S POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560070.

¶18

SMT. TANUJA MADHAV, W/O RAVIRAJ CHEDGA,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:54042 WP No. 32199 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32258 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT BRIGADE OMEGA, FLAT NO.A306, SEGMENT ONE, 80^TH ROAD, OPP. TURUHALLI FOREST, BHARATH HOUSING SOCIETY LAYOUT, SUBRAMANYAPURA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560062

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K. HCGP FOR R1; SMT. ARCHANA K.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 17.08.2022 PASSED BY THE XXXVII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY, IN CC.NO. CC.NO. 26740 OF 2022 BY WHICH ORDER THE TRIAL MAGISTRATE HAS TAKEN ALLEGEDLY COGNIZANCE AND ORDERED THE ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS TO THE PETITIONERS HEREIN WHO ARE ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3 FOR THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF OFFENSES MADE WHICH ARE MADE PENAL UNDER SECTIONS 498-A AND 506 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNX-A.

¶26

IN WP NO. 32258/2024

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SRI.RAVIRAJ CHEDGA S/O P. K. CHEDGA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NO.304, PRUTHVI CLASSIC, 19^TH CROSS, 20^TH A MAIN, SMS LAYOUT, J. P. NAGAR 5^TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.

¶29

...PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI. SANAT KUMAR H. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AJAY KADKOL T., ADVOCATE)

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:54042 WP No. 32199 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32258 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

AND:

¶34

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BASAVANAGUDI WOMENS POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560070.

¶35

SMT. TANUJA MADHAV W/O RAVIRAJ CHEDGA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT BRIGADE OMEGA, FLAT NO. A 306, SEGMENT ONE, 80^TH ROAD, OPP. TURUHALLI FOREST, BHARATH HOUSING SOCIETY LAYOUT, SUBRAMANYAPURA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560062

¶36

...RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. ARCHANA K. M.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶38

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING FOR DIRECTION REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 14.11.2022 PASSED BY THE XXXVII ADDL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU CITY IN CC NO. 35421/2022 BY WHICH ORDER THE TRIAL MAGISTRATE HAS ALLEGEDLY TAKEN COGNIZANCE AND ORDERED THE ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN WHO IS ARRAIGNED AS AN ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF OFFENSES MADE WHICH ARE MADE PENAL UNDER SECTION 504 AND 505 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNX-A

¶39

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

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:54042 WP No. 32199 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32258 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

W.P.No.32199/2024 arise out of Crime No. 67/2022

¶45

of Basavanagudi Women Police Station, registered for the

¶46

offence under Section 498A, 506 of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶47

W.P.No.32258/2024 arise out of Crime

¶48

No.152/2022 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station, registered for the offence under Section 506 and 504 of IPC.

¶49

Charge sheet is filed in both the case and the proceedings are pending on the file of XXXVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bangalore City in C.C.No.26740/2022 and C.C.No.35421/2022 respectively. In both the petitions, petitioners are seeking to quash the entire proceedings pending against them.

¶50

The law is set in motion by respondent No.2, wife of Petitioner No.1 in W.P.32199/2024, the sole petitioner in W.P.No.32258/2024. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in

¶51

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:54042 WP No. 32199 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32258 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

W.P.No.32199/2024 are the parents of petitioner No.1.

¶54

The matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute between the parties.

¶55

Petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.32199/2025 as well

¶56

as the respondent No.2 / defacto complainant are present before the Court. Applications are filed in both the petitions under Section 320 read with 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground of settlement. Applications are accompanied by the affidavit of the parties. It is stated that upon mutual discussions, they have agreed and decided to lay a quietus to the dispute between them which stems out of their marital life, hence, respondent No.2 / defacto complainant has no objection for the quashment of the impugned crimes registered against the petitioners.

¶57

Respondent No.2 present before the Court submits that the entire dispute has been settled and therefore, she is not interested in pursuing the matter any further and she has no objection to quash the proceedings.

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:54042 WP No. 32199 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32258 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

7. The Apex Court in the case of Jitendra

¶61

Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and

¶62

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 noncompoundable, 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.’

¶63

8. The Apex Court in NARINDER SINGH AND

¶64

OTHERS reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held that when the parties have reached the settlement, and on that

¶65

basis, petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to: i)

¶66

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:54042 WP No. 32199 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32258 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

secure ends of justice, or ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. Those criminal cases having overwhelming and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transaction or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family dispute should be quashed when parties have resolved their entire dispute among themselves.

¶69

In the above facts and circumstances, considering that the matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute, wherein the parties concerned have amicably settled all the disputes, no meaningful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings pending before the trial Court. In order to secure the ends of justice, it is just and proper to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the following:-

¶70

ORDER

¶71

i) Petitions are allowed .

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:54042 WP No. 32199 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32258 of 2024

¶73

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.26740/2022 and C.C.No.35421/2022, pending on the file of XXXVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore, are

¶76

quashed .

¶77

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶78

LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 119

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Orders taking cognizance and ordering issuance of summons to the petitioners as accused: order dated 17.08.2022 in C.C.No.26740/2022 (summoning petitioners as accused Nos.1-3 for offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act) and order dated 14.11.2022 in C.C.No.35421/2022 (summoning the petitioner as accused for offences under Sections 504 and 505 IPC), both passed by the XXXVII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.¶25
XXXVII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City · 17.08.2022 and 14.11.2022
Prior proceeding
Registration of Crime No. 67/2022 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station for offences under Sections 498A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, out of which W.P.No.32199/2024 arises.¶44
Prior proceeding
Registration of Crime No.152/2022 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station for offences under Sections 506 and 504 IPC, out of which W.P.No.32258/2024 arises.¶48
Prior proceeding
Charge sheet filed in both cases; proceedings pending before the XXXVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bangalore City in C.C.No.26740/2022 and C.C.No.35421/2022 respectively; petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceedings.¶49
Prior proceeding
Second impugned cognizance-and-summons order dated 14.11.2022 in C.C.No.35421/2022 challenged in W.P.No.32258/2024 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.¶38
Prior proceeding
The dispute between the parties is matrimonial in nature; respondent No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1, and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are his parents.¶54
Prior proceeding
Applications under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed in both petitions seeking quashment on the ground of settlement, accompanied by affidavits of the parties; respondent No.2/de facto complainant stated she had no objection to quashment.¶56
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2, present before the Court, submitted that the entire dispute has been settled, that she is not interested in pursuing the matter further, and that she has no objection to quashing of the proceedings.¶57

Sri.Raviraj Chedga v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Raviraj Chedga 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

Ubaid B S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kysar Khan @ Appu @ Khaiser Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Gagan Jayaprakash Vs State of Karnataka

A Sumangalamma @ Sumangala Vs State of Karnataka by