Disposed¶87

Smt. Veena v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2026WP/2675/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; quashing of 498A/506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act case after marital settlement; FIR Crime No.244/2020 dated 21.12.2020, Mico Layout PS; C.C.No.10020/2021 before VI ACMM Bengaluru; mediation under Section 89 CPC r/w Rules 24-25 Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules 2005; memorandum of settlement in MC.No.8086/2023; Rs. 10,00,000 full and final settlement; wife agreed to co-operate in quashing; offences not against the State; writ petitions disposed; single-judge oral order; M. Nagaprasanna J.; 11-02-2026; NC: 2026:KHC:8409.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions disposed; proceedings in C.C.No.10020/2021 pending before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, quashed qua the petitioners in both petitions. ¶87

Smt. Veena Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both writ petitions disposed; proceedings in C.C.No.10020/2021 pending before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, quashed qua the petitioners in both petitions.

¶87

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.10020/2021 (Sections 498A and 506 r/w Section 34 IPC; Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961), arising from the complaint/FIR of 21.12.2020 and pending before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, should be terminated/quashed in favour of the petitioners in both writ petitions following their settlement of the matrimonial dispute.

¶50

Court's answer

In light of the settlement arrived at between the parties and since the offences are not against the State, the Court deemed it appropriate to terminate the proceedings pending against the petitioners in the subject petitions.

¶81

Ratio / Principle

Proceedings in C.C.No.10020/2021 pending before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stand quashed qua the petitioners in both writ petitions.

¶87

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Connected writ petitions (GM-RES) — WP No. 2675/2022 preferred by the husband's parents (arraigned as accused Nos. 2 and 3) and WP No. 7828/2023 by the husband (accused No. 1) — sought quashing of the complaint dated 21.12.2020, the FIR in Crime No.244/2020 dated 21.12.2020 and the charge sheet dated 22.03.2021 in C.C.No.10020/2021 of Mico Layout Police Station (Sections 498A and 506 r/w Section 34 IPC; Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961), lodged by the wife (respondent No. 2) and pending before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Pending hearing, the spouses settled their matrimonial dispute in the Family Court proceedings (MC.No.8086/2023) under Section 89 CPC r/w Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005: the husband paid Rs. 10,00,000/- as full and final settlement to the wife and child; the wife retained 200 grams of jewellery valued around Rs. 20,00,000/-; both parties withdrew allegations; and the wife agreed to co-operate in quashing C.C.No.10020/2021. Observing that the offences were not against the State, Justice M. Nagaprasanna disposed of both writ petitions and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.10020/2021 qua the petitioners. Oral order dated 11.02.2026.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:8409 WP No. 2675 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7828 of 2023

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2675 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 7828 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶10

IN WP No. 2675/2022

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SMT. VEENA W/O SRI INNAJJE RAVINDRA AGED 53 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

MR. INNAJJE RAVINDRA S/O SRI INNAJE LAKSHMANA MITHANTHAYA AGED 63 YEARS

¶15

BOTH PERMANENTLY R/AT NO.74A 3^RD MAIN, DOLLARS LAYOUT, BTM 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 076

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY MISS. VANDANA P L., ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:8409 WP No. 2675 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7828 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MICO LAYOUT PS MICO LAYUT REPRESENTED BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶22

SMT. RACHANA N R W/O SRI ROSHAN M R AGED 26 YEARS R/AT 69/10, ARADHAN FIRST FLOOR, 2^ND MAIN, DATTATRAYA NAGAR HOSAKEREHALLI BENGALURU.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA., HCGP FOR R1;

¶25

R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶26

THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DTD.21.12.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-D LODGED BY THE R-2 THE RESULTANT FIR IN CRIME NO.244/2020 DTD.21.12.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND THE CHARGE SHEET DTD.22.3.2021 IN C.C.NO.10020/2021 VIDE ANENXURE-B AND A FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A 506 READ WITH 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961 ARRAIGNING

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:8409 WP No. 2675 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7828 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

THE PRESENT PETITIONERS AS THE ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 RESPECTIVELY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE VI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU ANNEXURE-D, C, B, A TO THE PETITION AND ETC.

¶30

IN WP NO. 7828/2023

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

SRI.ROSHAN S/O SRI INNAJJE RAVINDRA, AGED 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.74 A, 3^RD MAIN, DOLLARS LAYOUT, BTM 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶33

...PETITIONER

¶34

(BY MISS. VANDANA P L.,ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MICO LAYOUT P.S. MICO LAYOUT, REPRESENTED BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶37

SMT.RACHANA N.R. W/O SRI ROSHAN M.R. AGED 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.69/10,

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:8409 WP No. 2675 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7828 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

ARADHAN FIRST FLOOR, 2^ND MAIN, DATTATRAYA NAGAR, HOSAKEREHALLI, BENGALURU.

¶41

...RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA.,HCGP FOR R1;

¶43

R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶44

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE COMPLAINT DTD 21.12.2020 LODGED BY THE R-2 THE RESULTANT FIR IN CRIME NO.244/2020 DTD 21.12.2020 AND THE CHARGE SHEET DTD 22.03.2021 IN CC NO.10020/2021 FILED BY THE R-1 MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A, 506 READ WITH 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 ARRAIGNING THE PRESENT PETITIONER AS THE ACCUSED NO.1 PENDING ON THE FILED OF THE HONBLE VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BANGALURU (ANNX-A B AND C TO THE PETITION) AND ETC.

¶45

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

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8409 WP No. 2675 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7828 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶49

ORAL ORDER

¶50

The petitioners in both petitions are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in CC.No.10020/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶51

Heard Miss. Vandana P.L., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

¶52

The parties to the lis were also before the Family Court in MC.No.8086/2023 and have settled the dispute among themselves in terms of settlement and also have filed the memorandum of settlement in both the petitions. The memorandum of settlement reads as follows:

¶53

" MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT UNDER SECTION 89 OF CPC READ WITH RULES 24 AND 25 OF THE KARNATAKA CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDIATION) RULES, 2005.

¶54

The parties above named submit as follows:-

¶55

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:8409 WP No. 2675 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7828 of 2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

I. The petitioner has filed this petition against the respondent under Section 13 (1) (ia) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage.

¶59

II. The aforesaid petition was referred to mediation for resolving the dispute between the parties. In the course of mediation, the parties along with their parents were present and identified each other and have resolved their dispute and have agreed to the following terms and conditions:-

¶60

The petitioner and the respondent are Hindus. Their marriage was solemnized on 04.05.2018 at Prasanna Kalyana Mantapa, Jayanagar, Bengaluru as per Hindu rites and customs.

¶61

Due to irreconcilable differences and incompatibility of temperaments, the petitioner and respondent have been living separately from October of 2020. The efforts made by the elders, friends and well wishers to resolve the differences between the parties did not yield any fruits. There is absolutely no chance of reunion amongst them. Hence, the petitioner and the respondent have decided to get the marriage between them dissolved by a decree of divorce.

¶62

Both the parties state that they have a son born to them from this wedlock by name Anirudh R born on 20.05.2019 presently under the care and sole custody with the respondent/mother and continue to be so for which the petitioner/father has no objection. The respondent/mother has agreed to bear the all future expenses of the minor child including educational and

¶63

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:8409 WP No. 2675 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7828 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

other expenses. The petitioner/father has no objection for procurement and renewal of passport of the child by the respondent/mother.

¶66

The petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) to the respondent and the child as full and final settlement through D.D. dated 13.10.2025 bearing No.061397 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., J.P. Nagar Branch, Bengaluru and the same shall be handed over to the respondent before the Hon'ble Court at the time of reporting settlement. There shall be no further claims of any kind by the respondent/mother.

¶67

It is agreed that, gold ornaments such as ring, chain and bracelet which was gifted at the time of wedding shall be handed over to the Respondent by the Petitioner.

¶68

The Respondent shall retain all the 200 grams of jewellery valuing around Rs.20,00,000/- lakhs worth of gold that includes 2 necklaces, mangalya chain, earrings and jhumka, pair of bangles, finger ring, 4 silk sarees given to her during the marriage, which shall be her personal property and the Petitioner shall not interfere with the usage of such property in any manner whatsoever.

¶69

Both parties state that they have no claims over the movables of immovable properties belonging to each other either existing or to be acquired in future.

¶70

The parties further state that there has been no collusion or force, fraud or any undue influence in filing the above petition and entering into this compromise in the aforesaid manner.

¶71

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:8409 WP No. 2675 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7828 of 2023

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Both the parties hereby withdraw all the allegations made against each other either expressly or orally.

¶75

The respondent has agreed to co-operate to quash/close C.C.No.10020/2021 pending on the file of 6th ACMM., Bengaluru.

¶76

The respondent has no objection to get orders in WP 7828/2023 pending on the file of Hon'ble High Court for quashing the above criminal case against petitioner and his parents. All other cases if any shall be withdraw by the parties.

¶77

Both the parties admit that they shall not interfere in each other's lives in any manner or for any reason of whatsoever in future.

¶78

III. In view of the aforesaid agreement entered into between the parties, the parties pray that this Court be pleased to dissolve the marriage solemnized on 04.05.2018 at Prasanna Kalyana Mantapa, Jayanagar, Bengaluru by granting a decree of divorce in terms of this agreement.

¶79

IV. Parties will appear on 17.10.2025 before the Hon'ble Court for passing orders in terms of the agreement ."

¶80

Therefore, in light of the settlement arrived at

¶81

between the parties quoted supra and offences not being against the State, I deem it appropriate to terminate the proceedings pending against these petitioners in the subject petitions.

¶82