01Facts
The connected petitions concerned cross-criminal proceedings arising from complaints between Parvathi, Sanjay Shetty and Jyothi Sriram.
In Crl.P. No. 193/2025, Parvathi sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 7366/2022 for alleged offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
pp. 3–4In Crl.P. No. 4924/2025, Sanjay Shetty and Jyothi Sriram sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 22566/2021 for alleged offences under Sections 323, 324, 354, 420, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
pp. 3–4The parties filed joint affidavits stating that they had amicably settled their disputes and did not wish to pursue the complaints.
pp. 5–9All three appeared before the Court, confirmed the settlement was voluntary and stated that they had no objection to quashing the proceedings.
pp. 9–1002Issues
i.Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 7366/2022 in light of the parties’ voluntary settlement.
pp. 4–6, 9–12ii.Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 22566/2021 in light of the parties’ voluntary settlement.
pp. 4, 7–9, 9–1203Law Applied
The petitions invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, described in the petitions as filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.
pp. 2–4, 10–12The Court stated that settlement may be considered under the principles governing that jurisdiction, having regard to the nature of the allegations and whether the circumstances permit quashing.
pp. 10–11No specific precedent was cited in the order.
Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
Indian Penal Code, 1860 9 provisions
Section 34Section 323Section 324Section 354Section 379Section 384Section 420Section 504Section 50604Reasoning
The Court accepted the parties’ joint affidavits and their in-person confirmation that the settlement was voluntary and that they did not wish to continue the cross-complaints.
pp. 5–10It found that the proceedings arose from disputes between the parties which had been amicably resolved and, considering the nature of the allegations and the parties’ statements, concluded that continuation would serve no useful purpose.
pp. 10–12It therefore considered quashing appropriate to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
p. 1205Holding
The Court allowed both petitions.
p. 12It quashed the proceedings against Parvathi in C.C. No. 7366/2022 and against Sanjay Shetty and Jyothi Sriram in C.C. No. 22566/2021; pending applications were dismissed.
p. 12Original Court PDF
SMT. PARVATHIvsSTATE BY KAMAKSHIPALYA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
