Allowed¶42

Thomas Mathew v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2026CRL.P/1575/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.P. No. 1575/2019, Karnataka HC, R. Nataraj J., 07-04-2026 — S.482 CrPC quashing petition allowed on consent basis: complainant (R2) stated in court and by video call that she had pardoned the accused and did not wish to prosecute; proceedings in C.C.No.8554/2016 before CJM, Bengaluru Rural District, for SS. 120B(2), 499, 500, 501, 502 IPC (conspiracy/defamation) quashed. No precedent engaged; useful only as an example of quash on complainant's pardon/non-prosecution, not on merits.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 16.07.2016 (Annexure-A) and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.8554/2016 pending against the petitioners on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, for offences under Sections 120B(2), 499, 500, 501 and 502 of IPC. ¶42

Thomas Mathew Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.8554/2016 pending against the petitioners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, for offences punishable under Sections 120B(2), 499, 500, 501 and 502 of IPC should be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶35

Court's answer

In view of respondent No.2's statement, made through her counsel and by video call before the Court (her son Mr.Anish Kumar also confirming), that she does not intend to prosecute the matter and has pardoned the petitioners, this criminal petition is allowed.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The prosecution of the petitioners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B(2), 499, 500, 501 and 502 of IPC is quashed. (The operative paragraph prints the case number as 'CC.No.8554/2026'; all other references in the judgment give C.C.No.8554/2016.)

¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), single bench (R. Nataraj J.), Criminal Petition No. 1575 of 2019, decided 07.04.2026. Six petitioners sought, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, quashing of the order dated 16.07.2016 (Annexure-A) and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.8554/2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, for offences punishable under Sections 120B(2), 499, 500, 501, 502 of the IPC, the prosecution having been launched by respondent No.2. When the petition was listed for admission, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that she did not intend to prosecute the matter and had pardoned the petitioners; on a video call arranged by counsel, respondent No.2 herself told the Court she was not interested in pursuing CC.No.8554/2016, and her son, Mr.Anish Kumar, confirmed that she had pardoned the petitioners. Holding that view of the matter sufficient, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the prosecution of the petitioners for the said offences. The operative paragraph records the case number as 'CC.No.8554/2026', inconsistent with every other reference to 'C.C.No.8554/2016' in the judgment, and appears to be a typographical error. No precedent was cited or discussed; the disposal rests entirely on the complainant's recorded disinclination to prosecute.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18927 CRL.P No. 1575 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1575 OF 2019

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THOMAS MATHEW

¶11

S/O LATE MATHAI KURUVILLA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O THURUTHIPARA HOUSE, ALANAD POST OFFICE, PALA, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT – 686 651

¶12

T M JOSEPH S/O LATE MATHAI KURUVILLA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARSM R./O THURUTHIPARA HOUSE, KANNAMBARA POST OFFICE, ATAHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 686

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MARY THOMAS W/O T K THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, THEKKEKANDATHI HOUSE, VELLIYAMATTAM POST OFFICE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKI DISTRUICT – 686 588

¶15

SUSY @ THEYYAMMA W/O P J MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O PAZHEDATH HOUSE, AJIRY POST OFFICE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKI DISTRICT - 686 588

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18927 CRL.P No. 1575 of 2019

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SAM VARKEY S/O LATE VARKEY KURUVILLA @ T K VARKEY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, THURUTHIPARA HOUSE, MOOLAMATTAM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKI DISTRICT – 685 589

¶19

SIPPY VARKEY S/O LATE VARKEY KURUVILLA @ T K VARKEY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, THURUTHIPARA HOUSE, MOOLAMTTAM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKI DISTRICT – 685 589

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. S.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. GANGABAI.V., ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-570001 BEGURU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU SOUTH-560068

¶24

MARY KUTTY M J W/O LATE T M MATHEW @ MATHAI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O NO.1436, CANARA BANK LAYOUT, BEGUR POST OFFICE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 068

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRMANYAM, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.DINESHKUMAR.KRAO A/W SMT. POOJA KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶27

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2016 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.8554/2016, PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:18927 CRL.P No. 1575 of 2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B(2), 499, 500, 501, 502 OF THE IPC.

¶32

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

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Petitioners have called in question the prosecution launched against them by respondent No.2 in CC.No.8554/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B(2), 499, 500, 501 and 502 of IPC pending trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶36

When this petition is listed for admission, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 does not intend to prosecute the matter and that she has pardoned the petitioners.

¶37

The learned counsel also arranged for a video call where respondent No.2 informed the Court that she is not interested to pursue CC.No.8554/2016. The son of respondent No.2 - Mr.Anish Kumar is also present and he submits that respondent No.2 has already pardoned the petitioners and therefore, she is not interested to pursue this petition.

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18927 CRL.P No. 1575 of 2019

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed .

¶41

The prosecution of the petitioners in

¶42

CC.No.8554/2026 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B(2), 499, 500, 501 and 502 of IPC is quashed.

¶43

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶44

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Thomas Mathew v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas Mathew 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ghouse Khan Vs State of Harihara

Mr.Sandeep Vishwanath Vs Mr.Anush Martio James

Naresh R. Punjabi Vs Smt. Kavitha S. Punjabi

Muninarayana B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ganesh D S Vs State of Karnataka by

Niranjan G S Vs the State of Karnataka