Criminal Petition No. 3878 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9830 CRL.P No. 3878 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3878 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MRS. LALITHA K R D/O RAJAGOPALA CHARI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.272, H GOLAHALLI, SOMAPURA, KENGERI, BENGALURU-560 060. 2. NAGESH H S S/O H.B. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.220, 5TH MAIN, M.S. RAMAIAH ENCLAVE, BENGALURU NORTH, NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 073. Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. AKSHAY RAVINDRA PRABHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHASHANK NAGENDRAN, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMENS POLICE STATION, WEST DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU. 2. SMT. NANDINI B L WIFE OF MR. MAHESHWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.127 2ND BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9830 CRL.P No. 3878 of 2024 4TH CROSS, THIMMAIAH ROAD, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079. (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. ANIL KALGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.0013/2024 REGISTERED BY THE WEST WOMEN POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 494, 498A, 417 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE 24TH ADDL. CMM COURT, BENGALURU CITY, AS AGAINST THEM AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDERS AS IT MAY DEEM SO FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners-accused No.2 and 3 who are facing investigation for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 494 and 417 of IPC are before this Court seeking relief. 2. The respondent No.2 lodged the FIR stating that her marriage with accused No.1 was solemnized on 8.4.1998, and she was subjected to cruelty both, mentally and physically and he contracted 2nd marriage with accused No.2 during the subsistence of her marriage, and accused No.2 and 3 along with accused No.1 abused, threatened her and also forced her to adopt the son of accused No.2, who is the divorcee. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9830 CRL.P No. 3878 of 2024 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the accused Nos.2 and 3 does not come under the ambit of relatives of the husband so as to prosecute them for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. He further submitted that, the registration of the FIR for offence punishable under Section 494 IPC lacks authority. He further submitted that, defacto- complainant-respondent No.2 left the matrimonial home of the petitioner No.2 in the year 2002, and the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of more than 13 years. Therefore, the continuation of the investigation will be an abuse of process of law. 4. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argues that the allegation made in FIR discloses the commission of the offence alleged against the petitioners and the veracity of the allegation requires to be investigated and at this stage, the registration of the FIR does not warrant interference. He further submitted that departmental enquiry was initiated against accused No.2 for having contracted marriage with accused No.1, and in the said departmental enquiry, accused Nos.1 and 2 have been found guilty. 5. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9830 CRL.P No. 3878 of 2024 6. Perusal of the FIR indicated that the marriage of the complainant with accused No.1 was solemnized on 8.4.1998, and at the time of marriage, accused No.1 and his family embers had demanded dowry in the form of cash of Rs.2 Lakhs and gold articles. The marital relationship between the complainant and accused No.1 was cordial for few years after their marriage and thereafter accused No.1 started to harass the complainant for trivial issues. During the period of pregnancies, accused No.1 has not provided sufficient food, nourishment, and medical care to the complainant. The FIR further indicated that on 5 occasions, it has come to knowledge of the respondent No.2 that accused No.1 was in illicit relationship with accused No.2 and married accused No.2 and from the said wed lock she had a child. The accused No.1 and accused No.2 travelled from Mangaluru to Mandya during their duties and continued to have illicit relationship. The accused No.1 had forced the respondent No.2 to adopt the child of accused No.2. In the year 2011, the respondent No.2 was thrown out of the matrimonial home. Except the allegation that the accused No.1 was having illicit relationship with accused No.2 and accused No.1 had contracted marriage with accused No.2, there is no allegation in the FIR to substantiate that the accused No.2 and 3 subjected the respondent No.2 to cruelty, both mentally and physically. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9830 CRL.P No. 3878 of 2024 7. From the averments made in the FIR, it is evident that accused No.3 was not residing along with the complainant and the accused No.1 in the matrimonial home. Although she had left the matrimonial home in the year 2011, the FIR was lodged in the year 2024. Therefore in the absence of any specific overt acts against accused No.3, the accused No.3 cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 498A. 8. Similarly, accused No.2 was also not residing along with accused No.1 and the complainant in the matrimonial home and the allegation of having illicit relationship does not satisfy the essential elements to constitute the offence under Section 498A of IPC insofar it relates to accused No.2. 9. Section 198 of Cr.P.C. deals with the prosecution for offences against marriage, and states that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Section 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, falls under Chapter XX of IPC. Therefore, the cognizance can be taken only upon the complaint in writing and not on the basis of the report submitted by the Police, the registration of the FIR, for the offence under Section 494 of IPC lacks authority. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9830 CRL.P No. 3878 of 2024 10. In the light of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view, the continuation of the investigation against the petitioners-accused No.2 and 3 will be an abuse of the process of law. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Cr.No.13/2024, registered by the West Women Police Station, Bengaluru, insofar it relates to accused No.2 and 3 is hereby quashed. 12. The Investigating Officer to proceed with the investigation against accused No.1 in accordance with law. Liberty is reserved with the respondent No.2 to file a complaint in relation to alleged contracting of 2nd marriage by accused No.1. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 99