- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52867 WP No. 34313 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO. 34313 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MOHAMMED KHASIM KHAN DOULA S/O MOHSIN KHAN DOULA AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS R/A NO 19/1, II FLOOR, DOULAS NUGGET, 1ST CROSS MUNIMARAPPA BLOCK, JC NAGAR BENGALURU 560046 2. SMT HUSNA MOHISIN W/O MOHLSINKHAN DOULA AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A NO 19/1, II FLOOR DOULAS NUGGET, 1ST CROSS MUNIMARAPPA BLOCK, JC NAGAR BENGALURU 560046 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANOJ S N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BYJC NAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU NOW REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560001 2. MS AMMEENA KHAN D/O MOHAMMED SHAHANULLA KHAN Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52867 WP No. 34313 of 2025 AGE ABOUT 26 YEARS R/A NO 26, 6TH CROSS, PIPE LINE CHOLURAPALYA, MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU 560023 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI.K, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. MOHAMMED AZMATHULLA QURESHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 16235/2025 AS PER ANNX-D PEDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 115, 351, 85 AND 88 OF BNSS, 2023 AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 169/2024 REGISTERED BY JC NAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU ANNX-A IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court in this petition, seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.16235/2025 pending on the file of the Court of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52867 WP No. 34313 of 2025 2. Charge sheet is filed for the offence Punishable under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 115, 351 85 and 88 of the BNS, 2023. 3. Petitioner No.1 as well as respondent No.2 are present before the Court. A joint memo is filed signed by the respective parties and the learned counsel appearing for them. It is stated that, due to the intervention of elders and family members, the parties have amicably settled all disputes and the marriage has been dissolved, in accordance with Islamic law, pursuant to which they have agreed to withdraw all pending litigations. It is further stated that in O.S.No.466/2025 filed by respondent No.2, settlement agreement was executed before the Bengaluru Mediation Centre, consequent to which, the said petition was disposed of, dissolving the marriage, in terms of the settlement agreement and even the child custody proceedings instituted in G & WC No.406/2025 was disposed of as settled, vide judgment dated 07.11.2025. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52867 WP No. 34313 of 2025 4. Respondent No.2 present before the Court submits that in view of the settlement, she has no objection to quash the proceedings, pending against the petitioners. 5. Matter arises out of matrimonial dispute, wherein, the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves. They have filed a joint memo, reporting settlement. Respondent No.2 has expressed that she has no objection to quash the proceedings. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another reported in 2013(2) Crimes 90(SC), has held that ‘the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., are wide and unfettered. It is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52867 WP No. 34313 of 2025 parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code, would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR.’ 7. In view of the settlement between the parties, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings pending before the trial Court. Hence, the following:- ORDER i) Petition is allowed. ii) The entire proceedings, in C.C.No.16235/2025 pending on the file of the Court of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25