Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekar S/O Siddarampur ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7373
CRL.P No. 102704 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102704 OF 2024
(482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. SIDDARAMPUR VIRUPAKSHAPPA,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYED IN PRIVATE FIRMS,
R/O. 2ND WARD, ACHARANARASAPUR, MARLI,
TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583229.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH V. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY GANGAVATHI RURAL P.S,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011.
2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O. ANILKUMAR,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S R/O. 2ND WARD, ACHARANARASAPUR,
HARIHAR
Location: High TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583268.
Court of
Karnataka, ...RESPONDENTS
Dharwad
Bench (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. ANWAR BASHA B., ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO ADMIT THE PETITION, CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH
THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT AND FIR VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND A FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S.498A, 323, 324, 504, 34 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, IN GANGAVATHI
RURAL P.S. CRIME NO.120/2024 IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 IS CONSIDERED, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7373
CRL.P No. 102704 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
This petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No.4
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime
No.120/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A,
323, 324, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in so far as accused No.4 is
concerned.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
On 08.06.2024 the first informant lodged the complaint to
the respondent - Police alleging that her marriage was
solemnized with accused No.1 on 13.02.2015 and at the time of
marriage, her parents had given a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and
six tholas of gold as dowry. After the marriage, the victim and
accused No.1 were residing in a rented house at Vaddu Village
near Toranagallu and at that time, respondent No.2 used to sell
saaries at home. During COVID-19, the couple returned to
Achar Narasapurra, the village of accused No.1. After the
COVID-19 pandemic, accused No.1 was unemployed and began
to harass the victim. Her in-laws also pressured her to bring
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7373
HC-KAR
Rs.5,00,000 as dowry from her parental home. On 06.03.2024,
the victim was physically assaulted by her husband and in-laws.
Again, on 26.05.2024 at around 7:30 p.m., Accused No. 2 and
the petitioner quarreled with her, deliberately insulted her, and
intentionally caused her harm. Thus she lodged the complaint.
This led to registration of the FIR and the investigation. The
petitioner was arrested and arrayed as accused No.4 in this
case. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner filed this
petition.
3. In the FIR lodged by the victim, it is stated that on
26.05.2024 all the accused persons took quarrel with her,
assaulted her, abused in filthy language, thereby harassed her
and also demanded to bring dowry. The alleged incident had
taken place on 26.05.2024, but, the complaint was lodged on
08.06.2024 without offering any plausible explanation.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of
A.P. vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao reported in (2008) 15 SCC
582, at para 30 has held as follows:
"30. Time and again, the object and importance
of prompt lodging of the first information report has
been highlighted. Delay in lodging the first
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7373
HC-KAR
information report, more often than not, results in
embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature
of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets
bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of
the introduction of a coloured version, an
exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted
story as a result of deliberations and consultations,
also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity.
Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the
report should be satisfactorily explained."
5. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6
SCC 599, at para 18 has held as follows:
"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse of
section 498A IPC 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7373
HC-KAR
proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the
husband when no prima facie case is made out
against them."
6. Perusal of the charge sheet material indicates that,
except omnibus and general allegations, there is no specific
allegation as against the petitioner - accused No.4, who is
brother-in-law of first informant herein as to how and in what
manner he subjected the de-facto complainant to cruelty. The
FIR was lodged by the second respondent insofar as the
petitioner is concerned without any probable cause and with
malice. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will
be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.216/2024
[arising out of Crime No.120/2024 on the file of
the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,
Gangavathi, Koppal District] for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7373
HC-KAR
with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, insofar as, accused
No.4, is hereby quashed.
iii. In view of disposal of the petition, pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
RSH /CT-AN
