✦ Karnataka High Court

KARNATAKA v. BENGALURU - 560 026

Criminal Petition No. 11782 of 2025SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM4 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 77. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings C.C.No.23165/2024, pending on the file of the XXIV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 342, 504…

Judgment

1. SRI MOHAMMED OMAR S/O. NISAR PASHA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.U-11, NEW NO.28, 7TH MAIN ROAD, PADARAYANAPURA, JJR NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 026.

2. SMT. HALEEMA KHANUM, W/O. NISAR PASHA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.U-11, NEW NO.28, 7TH MAIN ROAD, PADARAYANAPURA, JJR NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 026.

3. SRI. NISAR PASHA, S/O. ABDUL SHUKUR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.U-11, NEW NO.28, 7TH MAIN ROAD, PADARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 026. (BY SRI. TEJAS N.,ADVOCATE) RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:31387 CRL.P No. 11782 of 2025 HC-KAR AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA WEST WOMEN POLICE, BENGALURU - 560 023. (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HCK, BANGALORE - 01)

2.

SMT. AFREEN KHANUM, W/O. MOHAMMED OMAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO.24, 7TH MAIN ROAD, PADARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 026. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, SPP FOR R1) CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.23165/2024 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.34/2024 OF WEST WOMEN P.S., BENGALURU, ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ACJM, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A), 323, 342, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, U/S 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT, 1961, AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners/husband and his parents seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.23165/2024 for the offences punishable under - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31387 CRL.P No. 11782 of 2025 HC-KAR Sections 498A, 323, 342, 504, 506 and Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending on the file of the XXIV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.

2. Today, a joint memorandum, duly signed by the parties and their respective counsel, has been filed before this Court. Along with the joint memo, the parties have placed reliance upon the settlement recorded O.S.No.368/2024, which reflects the mutual understanding and agreement between the parties.

3.

This Court, in order to ensure voluntariness, has enquired from respondent No.2/wife whether any coercion, undue influence, or pressure was exerted on her to concede for closure of these criminal proceedings. She has submitted on oath that she has voluntarily entered into the compromise recorded in O.S.No.368/2024 and, in accordance with the terms of the compromise, she has already received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- by way of demand draft. She further states that as per the terms of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31387 CRL.P No. 11782 of 2025 HC-KAR the settlement, the petitioner/husband was required to pay the balance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- in order to secure the closure of the criminal proceedings.

4.

Today, the petitioner/husband has paid the balance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- by way of demand draft. Since the entire permanent alimony agreed under the compromise has now been fully paid to respondent No.2/wife, she has requested this Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.23165/2024, pending for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 342, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

5.

In view of the amicable settlement between the parties, and considering that the marriage between the petitioner/husband and respondent/wife has been dissolved and the permanent alimony has been fully discharged, this Court is of the opinion that, as the complainant/respondent No.2 is no longer willing to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31387 CRL.P No. 11782 of 2025 HC-KAR prosecute the criminal proceedings, it would be just and proper, in the interest of justice, to quash the same.

6.

This Court is also of the view that, in light of the fact that Section 498A of IPC is non-cognizable, and no heinous or grievous offences are involved in the charge sheet, it is appropriate to exercise the plenary jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

Operative part

7.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings C.C.No.23165/2024, pending on the file of the XXIV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 342, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:31387 CRL.P No. 11782 of 2025 HC-KAR 1961, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE KTY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 128

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 323, 342, 498A, 504, 506; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — ss. 3, 4.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Petition No. 11782 of 2025). ← Search more judgments