Karnataka High CourtCriminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

Karnataka HC Quashes Cross-Cases Between Woman And Two Doctors After All Three Settle Their Dispute

SMT. PARVATHIv.STATE BY KAMAKSHIPALYA

Karnataka HC Quashes Cross-Cases Between Woman And Two Doctors After All Three Settle Their Dispute. SMT. PARVATHI vs STATE BY KAMAKSHIPALYA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

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.

The court held

The Court allowed both petitions.

It also directed

It 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.

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. 3–4

In 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. 3–4

The parties filed joint affidavits stating that they had amicably settled their disputes and did not wish to pursue the complaints.

pp. 5–9

All three appeared before the Court, confirmed the settlement was voluntary and stated that they had no objection to quashing the proceedings.

pp. 9–10

02Issues

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, 9–12

ii.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, 9–12

03Law 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, 10–12

The 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. 10–11

No 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 provisionsSection 34Section 323Section 324Section 354Section 379Section 384Section 420Section 504Section 506

04Reasoning

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. 5–10

It 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. 10–12

It therefore considered quashing appropriate to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

p. 12

05Holding

The Court allowed both petitions.

p. 12

It 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. 12
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SMT. PARVATHIvsSTATE BY KAMAKSHIPALYA

Karnataka High Court · October 16, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment