- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35118 CRL.P No. 5665 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5665 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SMT LAKSHMIDEVI @ J LAKSHMAMMA W/O Y A RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A NO.58, CHIKKAMARENHALLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 063. …PETITIONER [BY SRI PRAKASHA K V., ADVOCATE (AB)] AND: 1. STATE BY BAYAPPANAHALLI POLICE BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY S P P HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI RAVI KUMARA S/O LATE K MUNIRAJ AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.G-1 PEARL GRACE ARARTMENT NO.69/C, 1ST B MAIN ROAD, G M PALYA, BEML SALVAGE ROAD, NEW THIPPASANDRA POST BANGALORE - 560 075. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1 (PH); SRI M.N.NAVEEN REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 (PH)] THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35118 CRL.P No. 5665 of 2018 MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.49/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420,467,469,468, 465,474 R/W 34 OF IPC BY BAYAPPANAHALLI POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE X A.C.M.M., BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging registration of Crime no.49/2018 in pursuance of PCR no.50002/2018 on file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall Bangalore for offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 469, 468, 465, 474 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), this petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 (complainant) has filed a memo producing copy of compromise decree along with compromise petition in OS no.7776/2019 on file of VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-11) dated 12.03.2022 recording settlement between complainant's wife and petitioner herein (accused no.2). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35118 CRL.P No. 5665 of 2018 3. Relevant terms of settlement in compromise petition are as follows: "9. The defendant no.2 shall withdraw the suit filed by her in OS no.4806/2017, against the defendant No.1 and the husband of the plaintiff herein, in respect of the suit schedule property as not pressed. 10. The plaintiff shall withdraw the private complaint filed by her against the defendants herein in PCR no.50002/2018, pending on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru. So also the defendant no.2 herein shall also co-operate with the plaintiff and her husband in quashing/closing the private complaint filed by the defendant no.2 against the plaintiff's husband in PCR no.3898/2018 pending on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru." 4. Therefore, learned counsel for respondent no.2 (complainant) submits that taking note of same, appropriate orders may be passed. 5. Since matter is of year 2018 and in view of memo filed by respondent no.2, matter is taken up for disposal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35118 CRL.P No. 5665 of 2018 6. Perusal of petition reveals that challenge is mainly on ground that dispute is civil in nature and complaint is filed to harass and exert pressure on petitioner. Perusal of private complaint would reveal that dispute between parties emanates out of transaction with regard to property and there is resort to Civil Court. 7. Certified copy of compromise decree produced by respondent no.2 (complainant) indicates settlement of dispute between parties in suit, with a condition imposed on complainant's wife to withdraw present proceedings. 8. In terms of compromise decree, complainant seeks to withdraw complaint and abide by it. Thus, continuation of proceedings against accused would be futile and there would be no chances of conviction. Though, cognizable offences are also invoked, transactions and incident are purely inter parte and there is no societal impact. 9. In view of above, not only on ground that continuation of proceedings would be abuse of process, but also to secure ends of justice in view of compromise between complainant's wife and accused, petition is allowed, Crime - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35118 CRL.P No. 5665 of 2018 no.49/2018 registered in pursuance of PCR no.50002/2018 on file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall Bangalore for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 469, 468, 465, 474 read with Section 34 of IPC stand quashed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15