Karnataka High Court
Sri. Nuthan Reddy S vs State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7829
CRL.P No. 7621 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7621 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NUTHAN REDDY S.
S/O Y SHESHADRI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/A 1246, 22 MAIN ROAD,
HSR LAYOUT, 1ST SECTOR,
BANGALORE - 560 102.
2. SMT. SARASAMMA,
@ SARASWATHAMMA
W/O Y SHESHADRI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/A 1246, 22 MAIN ROAD,
HSR LAYOUT, 1ST SECTOR,
BANGALORE - 560 102
3. SMT. KAVITHA
W/O BHASKAR,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
signed by R/A NO 117, BEHIND
SWAPNA V
OLD SRINIVASA THEATRE,
Location:
high court of MARATHAHALLI,
karnataka BANGALORE - 560 037
4. SRI. BHASKAR
S/O MUNI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/A NO 117, BEHIND
OLD SRINIVASA THEATRE,
MARATHAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 037
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. C.V. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7829
CRL.P No. 7621 of 2018
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY STATION HOUSE
OFFICER, HSR LAYOUT POLICE,
BANGALORE - 560 102
REP BY SPP HIGH COURT,
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. SMT. SUGUNA N.
W/O K.H. MUNISWAMY REDDY,
AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT
KODATHI GRAMA, KARMELARAM POST,
BANGALORE - 560 035
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. M. GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (AB))
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) IN S.C.NO.20/2017 ON
THE FILE OF THE XLV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-46), BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners -accused Nos.1 to 4 are seeking to quash
the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Crime
No.455/2016 of H.S.R. Layout Police Station, Bengaluru,
pending in S.C. No. 20/2017, on the file of the learned XLV
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-46), Bengaluru
for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A read
NC: 2025:KHC:7829
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, 'the
DP Act').
2. Brief facts of the case are that the mother of the
deceased lodged the first information with H.S.R. Layout Police
Station, Bengaluru against accused Nos.1 to 4 being husband,
mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the
deceased, making allegations that the deceased got married to
petitioner No.1 on 23.05.2012 and at the time of marriage,
accused have demanded and received dowry. After that, for
about four months, they lead happy married life. Later, the
accused started ill-treating the deceased and same was
informed by the deceased to her mother and other family
members. The cruelty and ill-treatment of the deceased
continued by demanding the additional dowry. On 23.06.2016
at about 06.15 p.m., accused No.3 called the informant over
phone and informed that her grand daughter fell down and
sustained injuries and called her to come home immediately.
The informant along with her sister rushed to the matrimonial
home and they found that the daughter of the informant
hanged herself to the fan in her bedroom. The victim was
NC: 2025:KHC:7829
released and she was shifted to a Private Hospital where she
died in the early hours on 24.06.2016. Therefore, the informant
requested the Police to register the case and to initiate legal
action against all the accused. Accordingly, the F.I.R. in Crime
No.455/2016 was registered and investigation was undertaken.
3. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be
filed. According to the charge sheet, at the time of marriage,
accused have demanded and received 1 kg of gold ornaments
and 1½ kgs of silver articles. Not being satisfied with the same,
the accused started demanding additional money and also they
were insisting to get a share in the parental properties. The
deceased was being ill-treated both physically and mentally and
as a result of which she was driven to take such extreme step
of ending her life by hanging in the matrimonial house.
Accordingly, the charge sheet came to be filed for the offences
punishable under Sections 304B and 498A read with Section 34
of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. The petitioners
being accused Nos.1 to 4 have filed this petition seeking to
quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
NC: 2025:KHC:7829
4. Heard Sri C.V. Sudhindra, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri. Venkat Sathyanarayan, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Perused the
materials on records.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that,
according to the prosecution, the deceased was calling the
informant and the family members very frequently and the
sterling evidence, i.e., the call records were not collected by the
Police during the investigation. General allegations are made
against the petitioners for having committed the offence.
Accused Nos.3 and 4 being the sister and brother-in-law of
accused No.1 are residing separately at Marathahalli whereas,
accused Nos.1 and 2 being the husband and mother-in-law of
the deceased were residing at H.S.R. Layout along with the
deceased. While filing the complaint all the family members
were roped in. CW-1 being the mother, CW-2 being the father,
CW-3 being the aunt, CW-4 being the sister and CW-22 being
the neighbour have given their statements to the Police. Under
these circumstances, it is not a case for raising the presumption
under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act.
NC: 2025:KHC:7829
6. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the
petitioners have filed an application seeking discharge, but the
said application came to be dismissed by the Trial Court and
therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance on
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi
Narayana and Others v/s State of Telangana and
Another1 in support of his contention that mere reference to
the names of the family members in a criminal case arising out
of matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating
their active involvement is to be nipped in the bud. Therefore,
it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that except saying that the offence in question is committed at
the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 4, no specific allegations are
made against them. Under such circumstances, criminal
petition is to be allowed in the interest of justice.
8. Alternatively, learned counsel submitted that the
criminal proceedings against accused Nos. 2 to 4, who are the
AIR 2025 SC 173
NC: 2025:KHC:7829
family members of accused No.1 is liable to be quashed. Hence,
prays for passing appropriate orders.
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
opposing the petition submitted that, the mother of the
deceased lodged the first information making specific
allegations. It is stated that 1kg of gold and 1½ kgs of silver
articles were given as dowry at the time of marriage and there
was demand for additional dowry. There was also demand for
share in the parental properties. The deceased died within 4
years after marriage, leaving her 2 years old kid. She was
found hanging in the matrimonial house and therefore,
presumption will arise in favour of the prosecution. Witnesses
have specifically stated regarding demand for dowry and
cruelty soon before her death. Under such circumstances, it is
not a case for quashing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly,
he prays for dismissal of the petition.
10. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise
for my consideration is:
NC: 2025:KHC:7829
"Whether the Petitioners have made
out any grounds to allow the petition and
to quash the criminal proceedings initiated
against them?"
My answer to the above point is 'Partly in Affirmative' for
the following:
REASONS
11. The mother of the deceased lodged the first
information making specific allegations against the accused.
After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. As per
charge sheet allegations, accused No.1 being the husband of
the deceased had demanded and accepted dowry i.e., 1kg of
gold and 1½ kgs of silver articles at the time of marriage and
still continued to demand additional dowry from the deceased.
He used to ill-treat her very frequently and it is stated that the
acts of accused No.1 was at the instigation of accused Nos.2 to
4. Except stating that accused No.2 to 4 were instigating
accused No.1 either to demand additional dowry or to treat the
deceased with cruelty, there are no specific allegations against
them. Accused No.2 is the mother, accused No.3 is the sister
NC: 2025:KHC:7829
and accused No.4 is the brother-in-law of accused No.1. It is
stated that accused Nos.3 and 4 are residing separately.
12. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for
the petitioners in Dara Lakshmi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court referred to a similar case, where there is reference to the
members of the family of the main accused to implicate them in
the criminal case making general and omnibus allegations. In
paragraph No.25 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court
made it very clear that mere reference to the names of the
family members in a criminal case arising out of matrimonial
dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active
involvement is to be nipped in the bud. The Court has also
referred to the general tendency which is growing nowadays to
implicate all the members of the husband's family when
domestic disputes arise out of the matrimonial discords and
therefore, cautioned the Courts about such generalized and
sweeping accusations, unsupported by concrete evidence and
held that such general allegations cannot be the basis for
criminal prosecution. The High Courts are also cautioned to
exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.PC to prevent
misuse of the legal provisions and the legal process for the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7829
purpose avoiding unnecessary harassment of innocent family
members. The observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court
aptly apply to petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 in the present case who
are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 4 as they are the family
members of accused No.1.
13. When the accusations made against accused No.1 -
husband of the deceased are taken into consideration, there
are specific allegations made against him regarding demand
and acceptance of dowry at the time of marriage and demand
for additional dowry and treating the deceased with cruelty
soon before her death. Under such circumstances, it cannot be
said that the general allegations are made against him.
Admittedly, the deceased died an unnatural death in the
matrimonial house within 4 years from the date of her
marriage, leaving her 2 years old kid. The materials on record
give rise to the presumption of law regarding dowry death and
therefore, I am of the opinion that petitioner No.1 - accused
No.1 is not entitled for any relief, whereas, petitioner Nos. 2 to
4 - accused Nos. 2 to 4 are entitled for relief of quashing the
criminal proceedings initiated against them.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7829
14. Even though, learned counsel for petitioners placed
reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in Satvir Singh
And Others v/s State of Punjab And Another2, Vipin
Jaiswal v/s State of AP3, Charan Sing v/s The State of
Uttarakhand4 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam And
Others v/s State of Bihar and Others5, in all these cases
the facts of the case disclose that the parties have approached
the Hon'ble Apex Court after full-fledged trial and therefore, the
principals of law highlighted in these decisions are not
applicable to the facts in the present case.
15. In view of the discussions held above, I answer the
above point "Partly in the Affirmative" and proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The petition filed by petitioner No.1 - accused No.1
is dismissed.
(ii) The petition filed by petitioner Nos.2 to 4 - accused
Nos.2 to 4 is allowed.
AIR 2001 SC 2828
AIR 2013 SC 1567
2023 Live Law SC 341
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7829
(iii) The FIR registered in Crime No.455/2016 of H.S.R.
Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, pending in S.C. No. 20/2017,
on the file of the learned XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge (CCH-46), Bengaluru for the offences punishable under
Sections 304B and 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby
quashed against accused Nos. 2 to 4.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
ARK/ SPV
