- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53645 CRL.P No. 10920 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10920 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI VINOD KUMAR G. S/O A. GANGADHARAN AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT 142, 8TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN, LAGGERE BRIDGE, PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES, BANGALORE-560058. 2. SRI.A. GANGADHARAN S/O ANGALAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT 142, 8TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN, FF COLONY LAGGERE, PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES, BANGALORE-560058. 3. SMT. USHARANI G. W/O SURESH BABU D. AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT 15/14, 23RD MAIN, J.C. NAGARA, MINIPURAM LAYOUT. BANGALORE -560086. 4. SMT. MEENA G. W/O PRAVEEN KUMAR. R. AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.7. 12TH CROSS, PIPELINE ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT, J.C. NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI. Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53645 CRL.P No. 10920 of 2025 BANGALORE-560086. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH M R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BY NORTH WOMEN POLICE STATION BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. SMT KAVITHANJALI P W/O VINOD KUMAR G. AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT 108, 11TH CROSS, WEST OF CORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU -560010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. LOKESHA M., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.9234/2025 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.101/2024 REGISTERED BY NORTH WOMEN P.S., BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 85,351(2),352 R/W 3(5) OF BNS, 2023, U/S 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXII ACJM COURT, 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 are seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.9234/2025 pending before the XXXII ACJM Court Bengaluru. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53645 CRL.P No. 10920 of 2025 2. Charge sheet is filed for the offence Punishable under Section 85, 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. Respondent No.2 is the defacto complainant. On her complaint, a case in Crime No.101/2024 was registered at North Women Police Station, Bengaluru City, against accused Nos.1 to 5. Petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 4 respectively. 4. Matter arises out of matrimonial dispute, wherein, the dispute is said to have been resolved by mutual consent. It is stated that the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru in M.C.No.1785/2025 has dissolved the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 by mutual consent. 5. In the memorandum of settlement filed by the parties before the Family Court, the complainant in this case has undertaken to close the proceedings pending before the trial Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53645 CRL.P No. 10920 of 2025 6. Petitioners and respondent No.2 are present before the Curt. They are identified by the learned counsel appearing for them. A joint memo is filed, reporting settlement. Respondent No.2 / defacto complainant submits, she is not interested in proceeding with the case any further and she has no objection to quash the proceedings. 7. Joint memo and the affidavit are placed on record. 8. 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:53645 CRL.P No. 10920 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.’ 9. In the facts and circumstances, no purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings pending against the petitioners. In the interest of justice, it is just and proper to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER i) Petition is allowed. ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.9234/2025 pending before the XXXII ACJM, Court, Bengaluru are quashed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 134