01Facts
Respondent No. 2 complained that she met the petitioner through a matrimonial website and that he had physical relations with her on a promise of marriage.
She also alleged financial transactions between them.
An FIR was registered in Crime No. 121/2024 for offences under Sections 376, 420 and 506 of the IPC; the case proceeded as S.C. No. 1582/2024.
p. 2While the petitioner’s quashing petition was pending, the parties settled their financial disputes.
pp. 3–5Respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit stating that she had received full and final settlement, had no surviving grievance, and had no objection to quashing the proceedings.
pp. 3–5Her counsel submitted that amounts paid by her had been returned, with further amounts paid under the settlement.
p. 502Issues
i.Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings in light of the parties’ settlement and the complainant’s no-objection affidavit.
pp. 5–7ii.Whether the nature of the allegations—including sexual intercourse allegedly induced by a false promise of marriage—precluded quashing despite the settlement.
p. 603Law Applied
The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to secure justice.
p. 2The alleged offences were under Sections 376, 420 and 506 of the IPC.
p. 2, 6The Court cited no precedent or detailed statutory test; it relied on its inherent jurisdiction and considered the settlement, the complainant’s stated wishes, and the circumstances in which the complaint arose.
pp. 6–7Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376Section 420Section 506
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the complaint concerned both physical intimacy allegedly based on a promise of marriage and financial transactions between the parties.
p. 6Although it acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations, it considered the parties’ settlement, the complainant’s confirmation that her financial claims had been satisfied, and her express lack of objection to quashing.
pp. 4–7It also recorded that the physical intimacy had been consensual at the time and that the complaint was subsequently made on the basis of an alleged false promise to marry.
p. 6In those circumstances, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would cause injustice to parties who wished to move on.
pp. 6–705Holding
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in S.C. No. 1582/2024, arising from Crime No. 121/2024 of Thilaknagar Police Station, against the petitioner.
p. 7Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of as no longer surviving.
p. 7Original Court PDF
SRI.D.KARTHIKvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
