- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10864 CRL.P No. 3089 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3089 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. DIVAKAR S/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.9/333, MUNIVENKATAPPA LAYOUT, WARD NO.1 ANEKAL TOWN ANEKAL-562 106. 2. S. GEETHA W/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.9/333, MUNIVENKATAPPA LAYOUT, WARD NO.9 ANEKAL TOWN ANEKAL-562 106. 3. M. JAGADESH S/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.9/333, MUNIVENKATAPPA LAYOUT, WARD NO.9 ANEKAL TOWN ANEKAL-562 106. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANANDA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ANEKAL POLICE STATION Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10864 CRL.P No. 3089 of 2025 REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE- 560 001. 2. MAGESH S/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT 3/98 G, PUNAPALLI VILLAGE BALAGOUNDAPALLI POST HOSUR TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DIST, TAMILNADU- 635 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PRIYADARSHINI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR WHICH WAS FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CR.NO.0199/2020 DATED 16.12.2020 OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ANEKAL P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,306 R/W 34 OF IPC, ANNEXURE-A WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE ANEKAL BENGALURU RURAL REGISTERED AS S.C.NO.5076/2022 (ANNEXURE-C). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER Sri Manjunath, S, learned counsel files power on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2. The petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 3, who are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, are before this Court seeking relief. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10864 CRL.P No. 3089 of 2025 3. The prosecution alleges that the marriage of the deceased, Suguna, was solemnized with accused No.1 on 18.1.2010. After the marriage, the deceased - Suguna lived in a matrimonial home with accused No.1, and from the said wedlock, a male child was born. It is stated that the deceased committed suicide on 16.12.2020 due to harassment meted out by the petitioners - accused No.1 - husband, accused No.2 - mother-in- law, and accused No.3 - brother of accused No.1. 4. The parties are present before the Court and have filed a joint affidavit stating that they have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves. In terms of the settlement, the de facto complainant, and other family members have agreed to withdraw the allegation made against the petitioners, and they have no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings. 5. The joint affidavit is placed on record. 6. The allegation made against the petitioners is that they subjected the deceased to cruelty both physically and mentally. CW1, who is the brother of the deceased, was examined as PW1, and nothing was elicited in his cross-examination to prove the case of the prosecution. CW2, who is the mother of the deceased, was examined as PW2, and nothing was elicited in her cross- examination to prove the case of the prosecution. CW3, who is the sister of the deceased, was examined as PW3, and nothing was elicited in her cross-examination to prove the case of the prosecution. The material witnesses have turned hostile, and they - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10864 CRL.P No. 3089 of 2025 have not supported the case of prosecution. The other witnesses are official witnesses, and mahazar witnesses, and their testimony has no relevance for substantiating the allegation made against the petitioners - accused. 7. In light of the fact that the said material witnesses have no objection to quash the impugned proceedings, it would be a futile exercise, if the petitioners are subjected to trial since the probability of their conviction is remote and bleak in light of the settlement. Even otherwise, the perusal of the charge sheet material does not satisfy the essential elements to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in SC No.5076/2022 pending on the file of the learned III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Anekal, Bangalore Rural, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 86