- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16036 CRL.P No. 8099 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8099 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SYED ZABIULLA, S/O. SYED FAYAZ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 2. SYED FAYYAZ AHMED, S/O. SYED USMAN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 3. SHAMSHAD BEGUM W/O. SYED FAYYAZ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 4. SABIYA ALIMAN D/O. SYED FAYYAZ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 5. SYED SHOAIBUR REHMAN,, S/O. SYED FAYAZ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 6. SYED SHAHBUDDIN, S/O. SYED FAYYAZ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.5F, 1ST FLOOR, HALL MARK APARTMENTS, WHEELER ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 005. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SYED KHALEEL PASHA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16036 CRL.P No. 8099 of 2023 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PULIKESHINAGAR POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. FATHIMA MUTHAHAREEN, W/O. SYED ZABIULLA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO. 43/3, IIND CROSS, AJJAPPA BLOCK, DINNUR MAIN ROAD, R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. SYED SHIRAZ, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.407 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF PCR.NO.56086/2023 IN CR.NO.262/2023 FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 498A OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT OF PULIKESHINAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF XI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.262/2023 of Pulakeshinagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16036 CRL.P No. 8099 of 2023 registered for the offence Punishable under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498A of IPC, have preferred this petition for quashing the entire proceedings. 2. Respondent No.2 is the defacto complainant. Petitioners are the husband and in-laws of second respondent. 3. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are present before the Court. They are identified by their respective learned counsel. 4. A joint memo, joint application and joint affidavit are filed signed by the petitioners as well as respondent No.2/defacto complainant. The same are taken on record. The parties are seeking to compound the offence and quash the proceedings. 5. Respondent No.2 submits that the matter is settled out of Court and she has no objection to quash the proceedings initiated against petitioners, in terms of the joint memo, joint application and joint affidavit filed before - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16036 CRL.P No. 8099 of 2023 the Court. She submits that in view of the settlement between the parties, she has undertaken to withdraw the present case and the allegations made in the complaint and she has agreed for settlement without any force, coercive or undue influence from anybody. 6. In B.S. JOSHI AND OTHERS V/S. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial dispute and in exercise of its inherent power, High Court can quash criminal proceedings and Section 320 of the code does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in NARIDER SINGH AND OTHERS 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 to: i) secure ends of justice, or ii) to prevent abuse of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16036 CRL.P No. 8099 of 2023 process of any Court. Those criminal cases having overwhelming and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transaction or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family dispute should be quashed when parties have resolved their entire dispute among themselves. 8. In GIAN SINGH V/S. STATE OF PANJAB, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, it is held that the inherent powers of High Court is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but is has to be exercised to achieve either of twin objects namely (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, (ii) to do real, complete and substantial justice. 9. The matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute. In view of the settlement between the parties, by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, injustice would be caused. Hence, to meet the ends of justice, it is just and proper to quash the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16036 CRL.P No. 8099 of 2023 proceedings pending against the petitioners. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER i) Petition is allowed. ii) The entire proceedings arising out of Crime No.262/2023 pending on the file of the XI ACMM Bangalore, against petitioners are quashed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 CT: BHK