Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 76331 (KAR)

SRI UPENDRA KUMAR NAIK v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/1750/2022 · 2025-11-17

M I Arun

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47017 CRL.P No. 1750 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1750 OF 2022 (482 (Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI UPENDRA KUMAR NAIK S/O LATE SHANKAR NAIK AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS TERRITORIAL MANAGER IN STAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE CO. LTD. R/AT #24, BHEEMABHARANI LAYOUT BOGADI-GADDIGE ROAD, MARATI KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE JAIPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-570 026. 2. SMT. RUKMINI BAI W/O LATE SHANKAR NAIK AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT #24, BHEEMABHARANI LAYOUT BOGADI-GADDIGE ROAD, MARATI KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE JAIPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-570 026. 3. SMT. MALATHI BAI W/O LATE CHANDRA NAIK K.L. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47017 CRL.P No. 1750 of 2022 AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT #24, BHEEMABHARANI LAYOUT, RESIDING AT MIG-1021, FIRST CROSS, BOGADI, II STAGE MYSORE-570 026. 4. MS. DEEYA C.NAIK D/O LATE CHANDRA NAIK K.L. AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT MIG-1021, FIRST CROSS, BOGADI, II STAGE MYSORE-570 026. 5. SMT. BHARATHI W/O LATE PUTTA NAIK AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT RAJAJI NAGAR NEW LAYOUT SPES QUARTERS, BAGATH SINGH ROAD CHIKKAHONAHALLI, MYSORE PRESENTLY RESIDENT AT DUDDA HOBLI, HANGARAHALLI KOMMARAGHATTA POST ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 162. 6. SRI PUTTA NAIK S/O RAJA NAIK AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE RAJAJINAGARA LAYOUT HASSAN, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DUDDA HOBLI, HANGARAHALLI KOMMARAGHATTA POST ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT- 573 162. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47017 CRL.P No. 1750 of 2022 7. SMT. JYOTHI @ JYOTHI LAKSHMI S. W/O BASAVARAJA NAIK AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NAGARAKATTE KONDAJJI POST DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE-577 002. 8. 9. MS. KAVITHA D/O LATE SHANKAR NAIK AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT #24, BHEEMABHARANI LAYOUT BOGADI-GADDIGE ROAD MARATI KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE JAIPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-570 026. SRI DIRAJ @ MANJUNATHA C. NAIK S/O LATE CHANDRA NAIK K.L. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT MIG-1021 FIRST CROSS, BOGADI II STAGE, MYSORE-570 026. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SMT. PUSHPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47017 CRL.P No. 1750 of 2022 SHIVAMOGGA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SMT. ASHWINI NAIK W/O UPENDRA KUMAR NAIK D/O BOJYA NAIK AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT ARAMANE NILAYA 13TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, 60 FEET ROAD, VINOBA NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA TOWN-57. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP., FOR R.1; SRI SANDESH P. NADIGER, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN S.C.NO.214/2022 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 506, 313, 448 AND 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT AT SHIVAMOGGA AS ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47017 CRL.P No. 1750 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. The accusations against the petitioners arise out of the matrimonial dispute between petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 2- complainant, who were husband and wife. The petitioners are charged with the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 313, 448 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Disharmony between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, resulted in the husband instituting divorce proceedings and the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In addition, both parties filed criminal complaints against one another and their respective family members. 3. It is now submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise and divorce has been granted resulting in parties agreeing to withdraw criminal cases and other cases filed by each other. The present petition pertains to the complaint filed by respondent no.2 - wife against petitioner No.1-husband, and the other petitioners, who are his relatives. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47017 CRL.P No. 1750 of 2022 4. The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are present before the Court and are duly identified by their respective advocates. In the light of a compromise entered into between them, respondent No.2 is not interested in prosecuting the case against the petitioners herein. 5. Both the counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 together submit that the allegations have been made by respondent No.2 against petitioners were more out of vengeance than out of reality, which has resulted in S.C.No.214/2022 being registered against the petitioners. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, upon instructions, submits that he has no objection to quash the proceedings. 7. Admittedly, the criminal proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners due to a marital conflict between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. They have arrived at a compromise. It is apparent that no heinous crime is committed by the petitioners, as alleged. In my opinion, quashing the proceedings will only help the petitioners and respondent No.2 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47017 CRL.P No. 1750 of 2022 to lead their lives peacefully. Under the said circumstances, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 8. Hence, the following:- ORDER i. The criminal petition is allowed. ii. The proceedings in S.C.No.214/2022 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, against the petitioners herein, are hereby quashed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23