- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15317 CRL.P No. 2856 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2856 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MR. RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, SON OF DINESH PRASAD PANDEY, CURRENTLY RESIDING AT NO.19 FIRST FLOOR, 4TH C BLOCK, 12TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034. 2. DINESH PRASAD PANDEY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, SON OF CHANDRIKA PASAD PANDEY, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT: MIG-153, SOHAWAL TIRAHA, PEPTECH CITY, SOHAWAL, SATNA, MADHYA PRADESH-485 441. 3. SHANTI DEVI PANDEY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, WIFE OF DINESH PARSAD SHETTY, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT: MIG-153, SOHAWAL TIRAHA, PEPTECH CITY, SOHAWAL, SATNA, MADHYA PRADESH-485 441. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KAPIL DIXIT, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15317 CRL.P No. 2856 of 2022 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA HULIMAVU P.S., R/B STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. RICHA THAKUR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WIFE OF RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, DAUGHTER OF M.S.THAKUR, RESIDING AT: VILLA NO.108, HIMAGIRI LAYOUT MEADOWS, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, GOTTIGERE, BENGALURU-560 083. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1; SRI. RAVI A. BELAGATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BEARING CRIME NO.0238/2019 IN CC NO.6795/2020 PENDING BEFORE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN HULIMAVU POLICE STATION BY 2ND RESPONDENT U/S 506 AND 498A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15317 CRL.P No. 2856 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR in Cr.No.238/2019 registered at Hulimavu Police Station, Bengaluru City, for offence punishable under Section 506 and 498A of IPC and the entire proceedings pending in CC No.6795/2020 before the Court of V ACMM, Bengaluru. 2. Respondent No.2 is the defacto complainant. She has lodged a complaint against her husband and parents-in-law. Subsequent to registration of the case, petitioner No.1 herein filed M.C. petition in MC No.650/2020 before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. Parties have filed Memorandum of Settlement under Section 89 of CPC r/w Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005. In view of the settlement, Family Court has dissolved the marriage solemnized between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 herein vide order dated 27.9.2024. A copy - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15317 CRL.P No. 2856 of 2022 of the Memorandum of Settlement filed in MC No.650/2020 before the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru and the proceedings therein has been furnished along with a memo. Clause 7 of the Memorandum of Settlement reads as under: “In view of the settlement arrived between the parties the petitioner has agreed to co-operate with the respondent and her family members to closure/quashing of the C.C.No.8642/2021 filed under section 499, 506 of IPC pending before the 39th ACJM., Bengaluru. Likewise the respondent has agreed to co-operate to closure/quashing of the C.C.No.6795/2020 filed under section 498A, 506 of IPC against the petitioner pending on the file of 9th ACJM., Bengaluru. The respondent has also agreed to withdraw the Crl.Misc.No.56/2020 filed against the petitioner u/s 12 of the DV Act., pending on the V MMTC., Bengaluru.”. 3. Accepting the mediation agreement executed between the parties, the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.2 solemnized on 30.6.2001 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15317 CRL.P No. 2856 of 2022 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties, respondent No.2 has no objection to close the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and Others V. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held that when the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis, petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be:(i) to secure the ends of justice; or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It is further held that the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15317 CRL.P No. 2856 of 2022 6. In B.S.Joshi and others V. State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the code to quash criminal proceedings, where dispute is of a private nature and the compromise is entered into between the parties. 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, no purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending before the trial Court. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The entire proceedings in CC No.6795/2020 pending on the file of the V ACMM, Bengaluru (Cr.No.238/2019 of Hulimavu Police Station) stand quashed. iii. I.A.No.1/2022 is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE TL / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35