- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45600 CRL.P No. 12374 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12374 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. GNANESHWAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O LATE KK DEVA RAJU, RESIDING AT 17/1, PRIYA NILAYA, HUTCHINS ROAD, COOK TOWN, BENGALURU-560 007. 2. SMT. DEVIKA MUDLAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, D/O DEVARAJ KOTAPPA, RESIDING AT 8/1, S NUMBER 4TH, STREET SEEPINGS ROAD CROSS, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJITH H.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GIRIDHAR H., ADVOCATE (P/H)) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA EAST ZONE WOMEN P.S., BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SMT. YOGESHWARI A. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, W/O D. GANESHWAR, Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45600 CRL.P No. 12374 of 2024 RESIDING AT NO.17/01, PRIYA NILAYA, HUTCHINS ROAD, COOK TOWN, BENGALURU-560 007. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1 (P/H); SRI. ASHUTOSH K.L., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (P/H)) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTD WITH SC.NO.384/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE XLV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH:46) AT BENGALURU, FOR ALLEGED COMMISSION OF OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 READ WITH SECTIONS 498A, 323, 504, 506 AND 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE TO EXAMINE THE SAME AND QUASH THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED BY THE EAST WOMEN ZONE P.S./RESPONDENT NO.1 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.0125/2021. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioners are seeking to quash the final report/chargesheet, pending before the learned XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-46), Bengaluru in S.C.No.384/2024. 2. Chargesheet is filed against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 307, 323, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45600 CRL.P No. 12374 of 2024 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and respondent No.2/defacto complainant submits that a memorandum of settlement has been filed before the Family Court, Bengaluru, wherein the parties have settled the dispute and based on the same, an order is passed, dissolving the marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2 and decree of divorce has been granted. 4. Copy of the memorandum of settlement and the order passed by the Court of V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, M.C.No.5772/2022 dated 12.08.2024 are produced along with the petition. 5. Petitioners and respondent No.2 are present before the Court. They acknowledged the fact that the matter has been settled. Respondent No.2 submits that in view of the settlement, she is not interested in proceeding - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45600 CRL.P No. 12374 of 2024 with the matter any further and she has no objection to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. 6. The offences alleged are non-compoundable in nature. However, the matter arises of a matrimonial dispute. Even though, the chargesheet is filed under Section 307 of IPC apart from other offences, as could be seen from the chargesheet allegations, the ingredients of the said offence cannot be said to have been made out. The only allegation in that regard is that petitioner No.1 has picked up quarrel with the complainant and tried to strangulate her and scratched her neck etc. 7. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45600 CRL.P No. 12374 of 2024 offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that, the 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.’ 8. In B.S.Joshi and others V. State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C., would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. It is also relevant to refer to para 8 of the memorandum of settlement filed in M.C.No.5772/2024, which is extracted here under: “8. The 1st petitioner has agreed to withdraw M.C.No.5430/2023 pending before V Addl. Family Court, Bengaluru filed against the 2nd petitioner herein as not pressed. The 1st petitioner also agrees and undertakes to cooperate in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45600 CRL.P No. 12374 of 2024 closing/quashing S.C.No.384/2024 pending before CCH-46 filed against the 2nd petitioner herein under Section 498-A of IPC, in accordance with law.” 10. This Court is of the considered view that in view of the settlement between the parties, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings. Respondent No.2 herself has come forward stating that she has no objection to quash the proceedings. In view of the settlement, it is expedient to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Entire proceedings pending before the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-46), Bengaluru in S.C.No.384/2024 are quashed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81