Karnataka High CourtCriminal Procedure and EvidenceFamily Law

Karnataka HC Quashes Cross-Cases Involving Estranged Couple’s Families After Spouses Settle And Decide To Live Separately

SYED FAROOQv.STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka HC Quashes Cross-Cases Involving Estranged Couple’s Families After Spouses Settle And Decide To Live Separately. SYED FAROOQ vs STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the criminal proceedings in both cases should be quashed in light of the parties’ joint application and amicable settlement of the matrimonial dispute

The court held

The Court allowed both criminal petitions and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 50640/2026 and C.C. No. 74008/2025

It also directed

The Court allowed both criminal petitions and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 50640/2026 and C.C. No. 74008/2025

01Facts

Criminal Petition No. 15392 of 2026 sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 50640/2026, arising from Crime No. 136/2025, alleging offences under Sections 118(1), 115(2), and 351(2), read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”)

p. 6 · ¶ 3–4

Criminal Petition No. 2625 of 2026 sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 74008/2025, arising from Crime No. 132/2025, alleging offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, and 85 of the BNS

p. 6 · ¶ 5–6

The disputes were matrimonial, between Mohammed Arfaz Khan and Ulfath Ameena.

p. 7 · ¶ 7–12

The parties and their family members were present, and the parties jointly applied to compound the offences and quash the proceedings, stating that they had settled the dispute and were contemplating dissolution of the marriage

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 7–12

02Issues

i.Whether the criminal proceedings in both cases should be quashed in light of the parties’ joint application and amicable settlement of the matrimonial dispute

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 8–13

ii.Whether continuation of the trials would serve any purpose where the spouses had decided to dissolve their marriage and live separately

p. 7 · ¶ 12

03Law Applied

The petitions were brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stated in the petitions as filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

p. 3, 5

The order cites no precedent and does not set out a separate legal test for quashing on settlement.

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 3Section 85Section 115Section 118Section 126Section 351Section 352

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the cases arose from a matrimonial dispute, that the parties had jointly sought compounding and quashing, and that the spouses had settled and decided to pursue dissolution of their marriage and live separately

p. 7 · ¶ 8–12

Having considered the joint applications, affidavits, grounds urged, and charge-sheet materials in both cases, the Court concluded that further trials would serve no purpose and allowed the applications

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 12–13

05Holding

The Court allowed both criminal petitions and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 50640/2026 and C.C. No. 74008/2025

p. 8 · ¶ 14 and order

The Court allowed both criminal petitions and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 50640/2026 and C.C. No. 74008/2025

p. 8 · ¶ 14 and order
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SYED FAROOQvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · November 02, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment