Allowed

Vinay Parthasarathy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2026WP/30082/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions filed under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a Lookout Circular and criminal proceedings in a domestic dispute. The Court allowed quashing based on a compromise petition showing settlement and reunification of the parties.

What did the court decide?

The Lookout Circular dated 02.02.2024 stands quashed and the proceedings in C.C.No.28900/2024 stand quashed.

Vinay Parthasarathy Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:33456 WP No. 8511 of 2025 C/W WP No. 30082 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 8511 OF 2025 (GM-RES) C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 30082 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶8

IN WP No. 8511/2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. VINAY PARTHASARATHY, S/O PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O NO.26, SAANDHEEPINI 2ND MAIN, HANUMAGIRI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560061. ALSO AT NO.22392, SILVER SPUR LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA – 92630, USA.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI UDAYA PRAKASH M, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SOUTH WOMEN P.S, REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01.

¶16

BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, EAST BLOCK-VIII, LEVEL-V,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:33456 WP No. 8511 of 2025 C/W WP No. 30082 of 2024

HC-KAR

SECTOR 1, R.K.PURAM,

NEW DELHI - 110 066.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SOUTH DIVISION, NEAR ULSOOR METRO STATION, BENGALURU – 560037.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3;

¶25

SRI H SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R-2)

¶26

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA U/S 482 OF CRPC PRAYING TO QUASH THE LOOK OUT CIRCULAR ISSUED BY R-2 DTD. 02.02.2024 IN LOC SUSPECT NO. 2441538 AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CONNECTION WITH THE CRIME NO. 01/2024 OF SOUTH WOMEN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶27

IN WP NO. 30082/2024

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

VINAY PARTHASARATHY, S/O PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶30

R/O 26, SAANDHEEPINI, 2ND MAIN, HANUMAGIRI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560061. ALSO AT NO.22392, SILVER SPUR LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA 92630, USA.

¶31

SHYLAJA, W/O PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O 26, SAANDHEEPINI 2ND MAIN, HANUMAGIRI LAYOUT, CHIKKALASANDRA,

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:33456 WP No. 8511 of 2025 C/W WP No. 30082 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

BENGALURU-560061.

¶36

PARTHASARATHY, S/O LATE NARASIMHAN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O 26, SAANDHEEPINI 2ND MAIN, HANUMAGIRI LAYOUT,

¶37

CHIKKALASANDRA, BENGALURU-560061.

¶38

...PETITIONERS

¶39

(BY SRI UDAYA PRAKASH M.,ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND:

¶41

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY VISHVESHWARAPURAM SUB SOUTH WOMEN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶42

DEEPTHI BADRINATH, D/O D V BADRINATH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O 1402, 8TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, BEML LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, RR NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098.

¶43

..RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;

¶45

SMT. Y P VIJAYA VASANTHA KUMARI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶46

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CC

¶47

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33456 WP No. 8511 of 2025 C/W WP No. 30082 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

NO. 28900/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXVII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC 498(A), 504, 34 OF IPC AND SEC 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT, AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶50

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

¶51

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶52

ORAL ORDER

¶53

In W.P.No.8511/2025, the husband is before this Court calling in question a Lookout circular issued by respondent No.2 on 02.02.2024, in connection with Crime No.1/2024 and in W.P.No.30082/2024, the husband and his family members are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.28900/2024, pending before the XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, for the offences under Sections 498A, 504 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶54

2. Learned counsel for petitioners and respondent No.2 in unison would submit that the parties to the lis have arrived at settlement and the couple have reunited. They have drawn

¶55

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33456 WP No. 8511 of 2025 C/W WP No. 30082 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

certain terms and conditions of settlement and the terms are agreed upon by them. They have filed a compromise petition under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., before this Court to that effect.

¶58

3. The compromise petition reads as follows:

¶59

“3. It is respectfully submitted that during the pendency of the present proceedings. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2/Original Complainant have amicably resolved their differences. The settlement was arrived at with the intervention of elders and well-wishers, and pursuant thereto, the parties have resumed cohabitation and are continuing their marital relationship in harmony.

¶60

It is further submitted that the Respondent No. 2 has no objection for quashing the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1-3 in the interest of justice.

¶61

It is submitted that the parties have amicably settled their dispute. The parties further undertake that they shall not initiate or institute any complaint, case or legal proceedings against each other in respect of the present dispute or any matter arising out of the same in future, and both parties agree to maintain peace and cordiality.

¶62

The parties submit that the compromise has been arrived at voluntarily and without any force, coercion or undue influence.

¶63

The continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose in view the settlement arrived at between the parties.”

¶64

In the light of the afore-quoted compromise petition,

¶65

though the offence alleged against the petitioners in the cases

¶66

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33456 WP No. 8511 of 2025 C/W WP No. 30082 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

at hand inter alia is the one punishable under Section 85 of the

¶69

BNS, as it is a matrimonial dispute and the couple have reunited and living together happily in United State of America, I deem it appropriate to terminate the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶70

4. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

(i) The writ petitions are disposed.

¶73

(ii) The Lookout Circular issued by respondent No.2 dated 02.02.2024, in connection with Crime No.1/2024, stands quashed.

¶74

(iii) The proceedings in C.C.No.28900/2024, pending before the XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, stands quashed.

¶75

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶76

NVJ List No.: 4 Sl No.: 9

Vinay Parthasarathy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Parthasarathy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Tahir Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank

Riya Shankar Mishra Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr a Rajasimha Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs.Kamala Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Salima Vs State of Karnataka by

Jobin Jose, Vs the State by Hennur Police Station