Criminal Petition No. 9271 of 2022 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16291 CRL.P No. 9271 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9271 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SATHYAMURHTY S/O LATE DORAIKANNAN, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, CHARGE SHEET ADDRESS: PLOT NO.212, ALPHINE SQUARE APARTMENT, DODDANAGAMANGALA ROAD, DODDANAGAMANGALA GRAMA, ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU-560 100. ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: DHARMA SALAI, NO.1063, METTUKUPPAM, SIDHIVALAGAM, VADALUR POST OFFICE PANRUTI TQ, CUDDALORE DIST, TAMIL NADU-607 303. 2. MAGESH KRISHNAN S/O SATHYAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, CHARGE SHEET ADDRESS: PLOT NO.212, ALPHINE SQUARE APARTMENT, DODDANAGAMANGALA ROAD, DODDANAGAMANGALA GRAMA, ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU-560 100. ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16291 CRL.P No. 9271 of 2022 …PETITIONERS
Legal Reasoning
FLAT NO.F-10, (FIRST FLOOR), SARA PRAKRUTHI, SY.NO.83/7, DODDANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. AMRUTHA MANCHANDA AND SRI. SUHAS G., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA P.S. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SMT. SHOBA RANI W/O MR. ARUL JYOTHI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, M.B.B.S., M.D. NEW EXTENSION, 5TH CROSS, HEGGERE, TUMKUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. L. ASHWATH G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.24924/2022 (CR.NO.83/2022) OF PARAPPANA AGRAHARA STATION FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-C PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY, SO FAR AS THESE PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 (ACCUSED NOs.3 AND 4) IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16291 CRL.P No. 9271 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioners are seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.24924/2022 pending on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, registered for offences punishable under Section 498A, 504 r/w 34 of IPC. 2. Respondent No.2 herein lodged a complaint against accused Nos.1 to 4, based on which a case in Crime No.83/2022 was registered at Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru City for the above mentioned offence and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. Petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4 respectively. They are the father and brother of accused No.1. A perusal of the complaint averments goes to show that, the complainant, a widow, got her name registered in ‘Kannada Matrimony’. Accused No.1 after seeing her profile, contacted her and promised to marry her. Further, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16291 CRL.P No. 9271 of 2022 he along with his mother and brother came to her aunt’s house and agreed for the marriage and on 12.09.2021, the complainant and her family members went to the house of the accused in Bengaluru, wherein they decided to get the marriage registered at the first instance and thereafter, to perform the marriage as per customs. It is further stated in the complaint that accused No.1 and the complainant exchanged rings in the temple on 19.09.2021 and thereafter, got the marriage registered on 16.10.2021 and as per the customs prevailed, married in a temple on 24.10.2021. Accused No.1 was working as an engineer in Texas Houston L and T (Larsen and Toubro) Company in America and after four days i.e., on 29.10.2021 he went to USA, leaving the complainant with his mother in Bengaluru, assuring that, he will take her, after getting her MBBS & MD certificates. The further averments in the complaint reveal that only for eight days, complainant stayed with her mother-in-law. It is alleged that her mother-in-law used to telephone to her husband and make - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16291 CRL.P No. 9271 of 2022 allegations against her and her husband used to call and torture her mentally etc. 4. A perusal of the complaint averments goes to show that vague allegations are made against the petitioners herein namely, the father and brother of accused No.1. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 telephoned to the complainant saying that she should give divorce to her husband and in the month of January 2022, when the complainant along with her sister went to Bengaluru to the house of her husband, after coming to know that he had come down to India, both her husband and his mother abused her in filthy language and drove her away and again on 02.12.2021 when her mother and brother went to the house of her husband, they were abused etc. Petitioner No.2 is alleged to have threatened and abused the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend that these petitioners were not at all residing in Bengaluru and even according to the complainant, she lived in the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16291 CRL.P No. 9271 of 2022 matrimonial home only for eight days. He contended, omnibus allegations are made against the petitioners and the entire allegations are false and the complaint was lodged just to harass accused No.1 and his family members. He has therefore contended that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is an abuse of process of the Court. 6. It is nowhere stated in the complaint that even the petitioners were living along with the complainant any time after the marriage. The complainant has stated that her husband i.e., accused No.1 went to America leaving her with his mother in Bengaluru. It is not stated that even these petitioners were living in Bengaluru along with the complainant in the matrimonial home. Vague allegations are made that over the phone, petitioner No.1 i.e., father of accused No.1 abused the complainant etc., and on 02.12.2021, when complainant’s mother and brother went to her matrimonial home, her mother-in-law - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16291 CRL.P No. 9271 of 2022 and brother-in-law abused and drove them away from the house. 7. The complaint is lodged on 20.03.2022. According to the complainant, after the marriage, she lived in her matrimonial home only for eight days. Vague and omnibus allegations are made against the petitioners. The averments in the complaint does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 498A or 504 of IPC as against the petitioners. 8. In Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that general and omnibus allegations are not sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings against relatives of the husband. The Apex Court has cautioned to be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16291 CRL.P No. 9271 of 2022 Referring to various judgments, the Apex Court has held at para 17 as under: “17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in- laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them." 10. A careful reading of the complaint goes to show that since accused No.1 was forcing the complainant to give divorce and as he did not furnish his address in America and Chennai and made allegations against her that she is not interested to join him, she lodged the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16291 CRL.P No. 9271 of 2022 complaint. On consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioners, it would be unjust if they are forced to face the trial. General and omnibus allegations made against the petitioners are not sufficient to continue the criminal proceedings initiated against them. Hence, the following:
Decision
ORDER Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings, as against the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 pending in C.C.No.24294/2022 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City (Crime No.83/2022 of Parappana Agrahara Police Station) is quashed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36