- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26563 CRL.P No. 5387 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5387 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: ASHOKA K.P. S/O.PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT 301, 3RD FLOOR BY NARAYANA REDDY LAYOUT 2ND CROSS, HORAMAVU KALYANANAGAR BENGALURU-560 043 …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHARATH J.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY HENNUR POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 2. YASHASWINI L.R. W/O.ASHOK K.P. AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT LALANAKERE VILLAGE BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA-571 432 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26563 CRL.P No. 5387 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC. (FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.55005/2023 OF HENNUR POLICE ON THE FILE OF XI ACJM FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "a) call for the relevant records; Quash the entire proceedings in C.C No.55005/2023 of the Hennur police on the file of XI ACJM for the alleged offence under section 498A of IPC and section 3 and 4 DP Act, in respect of petitioners. b) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26563 CRL.P No. 5387 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with. 3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that respondent No.2 is wife of the petitioner and she filed an impugned complaint dated 15.11.2022 registered as an FIR in Crime No.338/2022, pursuant to which, the investigation was conducted and chargesheet was filed by the Police authorities on 19.03.2023 and is pending consideration in CC.No.55005/2023 before the trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 4. In this context, it is relevant to state that subsequent to filing of chargesheet, the petitioner and respondent No.2 filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in MC.No.43/2024, wherein respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26563 CRL.P No. 5387 of 2025 No.2 unequivocally undertook to withdraw and close the impugned criminal proceedings. The said Section 13B petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 27.07.2024 as hereunder: "The petitioners have presented the petition U/Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent by a decree of divorce. 2. According to the petitioners their marriage was solemnized on 18-05-2017 at Sri. R.K. Kalyana Mantapa, Hirisave, Channarayapattana Taluk, as per Hindu Rites and customs. After marriage the petitioners lived together and led marital life for about 1 year only. From their wedlock they do not have issues. From the date of marriage their marital life was not happy and because of lack of understanding between them they could not lead happy married life. Every day they quarreled with each other for petty issues. As such the 1st petitioner voluntarily left the 2nd petitioner and she has been residing in her parental home from more than 2 years. Because of the misunderstanding between - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26563 CRL.P No. 5387 of 2025 them, they could not lead happy marital life from the inception. They led marital life with great difficulty. Their marital relationship was not cordial and there were quarrels between them for petty issues. The dispute between the petitioners could not be solved. Absolutely there is no cohabitation between the petitioners. The marriage between the petitioners is irretrievably broken. If they continue the marital relationship, they cannot live peacefully and it may have impact on their health and social life. Both the petitioners are not in a position to stay under one roof and continue the marital life. The conciliation efforts made by the elders to reunite the petitioners also failed. The petitioner No.1 has filed M.C. No.12/2023 against the petitioner No.2 seeking divorce, complaint before Bindiganavile police against the petitioner No.2 and his family members alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sec.498(a), 506, 504, 323 r/w/sec.34 of IPC and under Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is transferred to Hennur police station, Bengaluru and C.C.No.55005/2023 is pending before 11th - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26563 CRL.P No. 5387 of 2025 A.C.M.M., Mayo Hall, Bengaluru. Now, at the instance of their family members, the petitioners have decided to dissolve their marriage mutually. The petitioner No.1 has given up all her claim of maintenance and agreed to compromise the Criminal Case. There is no collusion between the petitioners in presenting the petition. Hence they prayed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. 3. The reconciliation between the parties could not be brought. The mediation efforts failed. The Petitioners have separated from each other from more than 2 years prior to filing the Petition. They have already settled regarding alimony and maintenance payable to Petitioner No.1. They do not have child from their wedlock. The parties have decided to resettle in their life. The six months waiting period would have further increased their agony and hence the waiting period is waived on application submitted by the petitioners in this regard. 4. To substantiate their case the petitioners got examined themselves as PW.1 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26563 CRL.P No. 5387 of 2025 and PW.2 and got marked 5 documents on their behalf as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. 5. Heard arguments of Advocate for petitioners and perused materials available on record. 6. The following points arise for consideration. 1. Whether marriage between the petitioners deserves to be dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent? 2. What order or decree? 7. Answer to the above said point is Point No.1 : In Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order for the following; R E A S O N S 8. POINT NO.1: It is the case of the petitioners that they being husband and wife governed by Hindu law lived together in marital relation for about one year. Thereafter due to lack of coordination they got separated and they have been living separate for more than 2 years prior to filing the petition. The efforts to rejoin them have failed and being unable to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26563 CRL.P No. 5387 of 2025 continue in marital tie, the petitioners by mutual consent agreed to dissolve their marriage. To prove the same the petitioners have pleaded in petition and stated in their evidence that their marriage was solemnized on 18-05-2017 at Sri. R.K. Kalyana Mantapa, Hirisave, Channarayapattana Taluk, as per Hindu Rites and customs. After marriage they lived together and led marital life for about 1 year only. From their wedlock they do not have issues. From the date of marriage their marital life was not happy and because of lack of understanding between them they could not lead happy married life. Every day they quarreled with each other for petty issues. As such the 1st petitioner voluntarily left the 2nd petitioner and she has been residing in her parental home from more than 2 years. Because of the misunderstanding between them, they could not lead happy marital life from the inception. They led marital life with great difficulty. Their marital relationship was not cordial and there were quarrels between them for petty issues. The dispute between them could not be solved. Absolutely there is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26563 CRL.P No. 5387 of 2025 no cohabitation between them. Their marriage is irretrievably broken. If they continue the marital relationship, they cannot live peacefully and it may have impact on their health and social life. Both of them are not in a position to stay under one roof and continue the marital life. The conciliation efforts made by the elders to reunite them also failed. The petitioner No.1 has filed M.C. No.12/2023 against the petitioner No.2 seeking divorce, complaint before Bindiganavile police against the petitioner No.2 and his family members alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sec.498(a), 506, 504, 323 r/w/sec.34 of IPC and under Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is transferred to Hennur police station, Bengaluru and C.C. No.55005/2023 is pending before 11th A.C.M.M., Mayo Hall, Bengaluru. Now, at the instance of their family members, they have decided to dissolve their marriage mutually. The petitioner No.1 has given up all her claim of maintenance and agreed to compromise the Criminal Case. There is no collusion between them in presenting the petition. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26563 CRL.P No. 5387 of 2025 9. To prove their marital status the petitioners got marked certified copies of their marriage invitation card, marriage photos and copies of their Aadhar cards as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. 10. Therefore from the material available on record it appears that the marriage of the petitioners was solemnized on 18-05-2017 at Sri. R.K. Kalyana Mantapa, Hirisave, Channarayapattana Taluk, as per Hindu rites and customs. From last 2 years prior to filing the petition the petitioners have been living separately and they have not been able to live together as husband and wife. Further the petitioners have mutually agreed that their marriage should be dissolved and both together presented the petition for dissolution of their marriage. Even after presentation of the petition the reconciliation between the parties could not be brought and on motion of both parties, in the inquiry also the petitioners stated on oath that their marriage should be dissolved. In the meantime neither the Petition is withdrawn nor did any of the Petitioners withdraw their consent unilaterally. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26563 CRL.P No. 5387 of 2025 11. Therefore from the materials discussed above it is clear that a marriage has been solemnized between the petitioners and the averments in petition are true. The petitioners have also arrived at settlement with regard to alimony and maintenance payable to 1st petitioner. The petitioners do not have any child from their wedlock. There is no any threat or coercion between the petitioners as well as from others. There is no other legal ground why relief should not be granted to the petitioners. As such the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed by them and their marriage deserves to be dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Hence for all these reasons answer to point No.1 is in Affirmative. 12. Point No.2: For the reasons assigned above the following; O R D E R The Petition filed by the Petitioners under Sec.13-B of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is hereby allowed. The marriage of the petitioners solemnized on 18-05-2017 at Sri. R.K. Kalyana Mantapa, Hirisave, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26563 CRL.P No. 5387 of 2025 Channarayapattana Taluk, is hereby dissolved by mutual consent from the date of this order. Draw Decree of divorce accordingly. The office is hereby directed to supply a copy of decree free of cost to each of the petitioners." 5. In view of the aforesaid decree of divorce by mutual consent, in which respondent No.2 unequivocally undertook to close the impugned proceedings, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the impugned proceedings would deserve to be quashed. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed; ii) The impugned proceedings in CC.No. No.55005/2023 (arising out of Crime No.338/2022 registered by respondent No.1-Police) pending on the file of XI ACJM, Bengaluru for the alleged - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26563 CRL.P No. 5387 of 2025 offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, qua the petitioner are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23