Karnataka High Court
Sri Naveen Kumar A vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 March, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12314
CRL.P No. 9468 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9468 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR.A,
S/O. ANANDRAJ.P,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
2. SMT. MEENAKSHMAMMA N,
W/O. ANANDRAJ P,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
3. SRI. ANANDRAJ P,
S/O LATE PHILIPS,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.11, CLUB ROAD, ANANDPURA,
Digitally signed by T.C.PALYA MAIN ROAD,
LAKSHMI T
Location: High
BENGALURU - 560 036.
Court of Karnataka ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V. ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY K.R. PURA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU - 560 036,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12314
CRL.P No. 9468 of 2022
2. SMT. SOWMYA A.M,
W/O NAVEEN KUMAR.A,
D/O.MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 117/A, BUDIHAL,
NITTUR POST, HARIHARA TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DIST - 577 530.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR DATED 03.04.2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
498A, 323, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC IN CR.NO.101/2022 DATED
03.04.2022 REGISTERED BY K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION ON
THE FILE OF X ADDL.C.M.M,. MAYO HALL, BENGALURU AND
THEREBY SET ASIDE THE FIR DATED 03.04.2022 IN
ANNEXURE-C AND C.C.NO.54701/2022 AND THEREBY ALLOW
THE PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners, namely the husband and parents in law
of respondent No.2, have preferred this petition under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C, seeking to quash the FIR registered
against them in Crime No.101/2022 at K.R.Puram Police
NC: 2025:KHC:12314
Station for offences punishable under Section 498A, 323,
504 read with Section 34 of IPC. Police have completed
investigation and filed charge sheet for the said offences.
2. It is the case of prosecution that marriage of
respondent No.2 with petitioner No.1/accused No.1 was
solemnized on 14.08.2020 and after the marriage they
were residing in the house of accused No.1 situated at
K.R.Pura, Bengaluru. Both of them were working in
Software Companies. It is alleged that, accused No.1 used
to take the entire salary of respondent No.2 and only for
few days she was looked after properly in her matrimonial
home and thereafter, all the accused started subjecting
her to mental cruelty demanding her salary. Even when
she was 7 months pregnant, they subjected her to mental
torture. On 19.01.2022, she gave birth to a female child.
However, when she called to inform the birth of a baby,
accused did not receive the phone call. On 03.04.2022 at
about 11.30 a.m., respondent No.2 along with her parents
and brother, namely CW's-4, 5 and 7 went near the house
NC: 2025:KHC:12314
of the accused, at that time they were abused and
assaulted etc.
3. The undisputed facts are that the marriage of
respondent No.2 with petitioner No.1 took place on
14.08.2020 and after the marriage, she was living along
with her husband separately. Both of them being software
engineers, were working. It is not disputed that petitioner
Nos.2 and 3, parents of petitioner No.1 were not residing
with the couple. On the other hand, they were residing
separately.
4. A perusal of the complaint averments shows
that, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 namely the parents in law of
respondent No.2 used to visit their house. The specific
allegation of subjecting the complainant to cruelty is
attributed against her husband. Omnibus allegations are
made that even his parents were demanding money for
purchasing a own house in Bengaluru.
5. It is alleged that on 03.04.2022 at about
11.30 a.m., the complainant along with her parents and
NC: 2025:KHC:12314
brother went to the house of accused as they were not
responding to the phone call after she gave birth to a
child, at that time the accused abused them and assaulted
her brother and father.
6. As already noted, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were
residing separately and they were not residing with
petitioner No.1. Vague allegation made in the complaint
against the parents of accused No.1 is not sufficient to
hold that there is a prima facie case against them. In the
absence of specific and distinct allegations against
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and the allegations being general
and omnibus in nature, the proceedings initiated against
the said petitioners cannot be allowed to continue.
7. In K.Subba Rao v. State of Telangana
reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452, it is held that:
"The Courts should 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".
NC: 2025:KHC:12314
8. In Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and
others Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2022
(6) SCC 599, the Apex Court at paragraph 17 has
observed as under:
"The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate
that this Court has at numerous instances
expressed concern over the misuse of Section
498-A 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 proceedings against the relatives and
in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is
made out against them."
9. Having perused the entire material on record, I
am of the view that the criminal proceeding initiated
against petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are aged about 65 and
70 years respectively, is an abuse process of the Court.
Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. Petition is partly-allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC:12314
ii. The proceedings arising out of Crime
No.101/2022 of K.R.Puram Police Station
pending in CC.No.54701/2022 on the file of
Court of X Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Mayohall Unit, at Bengaluru is
quashed against petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused
Nos.2 and 3.
iii. The proceedings shall continue against
petitioner No.1/accused No.1 in accordance with
law.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
PK
CT: BHK
