Karnataka High Court
Preethi D P vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19608
CRL.P No. 9987 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9987 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. PREETHI D.P.
D/O SHANMUKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT PUTTAIAH COMPLEX,
KUDIGE VILLAGE, KUSHALNAGAR TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 234.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY KUSHALNAGAR POLICE STATION
KODAGU DISTRICT
Digitally
signed by H REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
K HEMA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: BENGALURU-560 001.
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. HEMALATHA P.R.
W/O SHIVA KUMARA H.P.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.327, KUVEMPU LAYOUT
MULLUSOGE VILLAGE,
KUSHALANAGARA,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R.1;
SMT. LEELA P. DEVADIGE, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19608
CRL.P No. 9987 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.39/2022 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., AT KUSHALNAGAR, KODAGU DISTRICT FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/S 108, 109, 114, 498A, 323, 504, 506 AND 34 OF
IPC IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner-accused No.2 in C.C.No.39/2022
arising out of PCR No.303/2021 seeks quashing of the impugned
proceedings pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC,
Kushalnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 109,
114, 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
second respondent - complainant has filed a private complaint in
PCR No.303/2021 against her husband Sri.Shivakumar H.P. and
the petitioner herein inter alia contending that her husband the
aforesaid accused No.1-Shivakumar H.P. was the boy friend of the
petitioner and both the petitioner and Shivakumar H.P. committed
NC: 2025:KHC:19608
HC-KAR
the alleged offence against respondent No.2-complainant. The
aforesaid private complaint in PCR No.303/2021 having been
referred to the Police Authorities for investigation on 06.09.2021
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, the trial Court registered an FIR in
Crime No.50/2021 and filed a charge sheet which is currently
pending in C.C.No.39/2022 before the trial Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent
No.2 and perused the material on record.
4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged
in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned
counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the material on
record in order to point out that the alleged offences primarily
involving Section 498A of IPC and ancillary offences are not
maintainable as against the petitioner, who is not the relative of the
husband of respondent No.2 as contemplated under Section 498-A
of IPC. In this context, he places reliance upon the latest
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dechamma I.M. @
Dechamma Koushik Vs. the State of Karnataka and Another in
SLP (Crl.) No.3421/2022 decided on 04.12.2024 in order to
NC: 2025:KHC:19608
HC-KAR
contend that the petitioner being an alleged girl friend of the
husband of respondent No.2 who was arrayed as accused No.2
cannot be dragged into the impugned proceedings, consequently,
the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserve to be
quashed.
5. In Dechamma's case supra, the Apex Court held as
under:-
"Leave granted.
2. Though Respondent No. 2 has been duly served with
notice, she has chosen not to appear.
3. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru, thereby dismissing the criminal
petition filed by the present appellant for quashing the
proceedings in Crime No. 339 of 2019 on the file of Court of
Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupete, Chamarajnagar,
which concubine in an etymological sense be a "relative".
The word "relative" brings within its purview a status. Such a
status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or
adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one
being relative of another would not arise."
10. It could thus be seen that this Court has, in unequivocal
terms, held that a girlfriend or even a woman with whom a
NC: 2025:KHC:19608
HC-KAR
man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of
marriage could not be construed to be a relative.
11. Apart from that for bringing a case under Section 498A of
IPC, the material placed on record should show that the ill
treatment was meted out by the husband or a relative, which
is connected with non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.
12. Taking the allegations at their face value in the FIR or
even in the entire material placed in the charge-sheet, it will
show that there is no averment or material to show that the
appellant was in any way concerned with causing
harassment to respondent No. 2 on account of non-fulfilment
of demand of dowry.
13. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view
that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
appellant herein would be nothing else but an abuse of
process of law. We find that the present appeal deserves to
be allowed.
14. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is accordingly allowed;
(li) The judgment and order of the High Court dated 12th
April 2021 is quashed and set aside; and
(ili) The proceedings in Crime No. 339 of 2019 on the file of
the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupete for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 109 of IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are
quashed and set aside qua the appellant herein.
NC: 2025:KHC:19608
HC-KAR
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to
be dismissed.
7. In the instant case, on perusal of the material on
record and has rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, all the allegations made by respondent No.2 -
complainant primarily involve upon alleged offence under Section
498A involving her husband - accused No.1 and the petitioner not
being a relative or family member of accused No.1 clearly cannot
be dragged into or arrayed as an accused person and
consequently, in the light of the dictum in Dechamma's case supra,
I am of the view that continuation of the impugned proceedings qua
the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law and the
same deserve to be quashed.
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC:19608
HC-KAR
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.39/2022, arising out of
PCR No.303/2021 pending on the file of Civil Judge and
JMFC, Kushalnagar, insofar as the petitioner is concerned,
are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
VMB
