A Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition sought quashing of dowry harassment proceedings against husband and in-laws. The High Court found specific allegations of dowry demand, harassment and violence against each accused, held Bengaluru courts had jurisdiction as a continuing offence, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7872 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NO. 105-B, POCKET NO.3, DILSHAD GARDEN,
NEAR SEEMAPURI, JILMI, EAST DELHI, NEW DELHI - 110095
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ROSHAN H.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:43797 CRL.P No. 7872 of 2021
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1 SRI K.S.RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.6271/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IX A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU (CR.NO.399/2019 OF PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by accused no.1 to 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.6271/2020 pending on the file of IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out of Crime No.399/2019 registered by Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru and charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (‘D.P.Act’ for short).
and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent no.1-State and counsel for respondent no.2complainant.
hours for attending her duty. They imposed some conditions that all her salary should be paid to the accused persons and that she should not go to her parents house
and the entire expenditure of the marriage shall be borne by the parents of the complainant. The entire expenses towards the marriage was borne by the complainant’s father and gold ornaments were given. However there was some quarrel between the husband and wife, where accused no.1 is said to have pushed the complainant due
to which she suffered slip disc and therefore she was unable to travel for long hours. Accused no.1 to 3 insisted her to do all the house hold work and insisted her to bring hot water from the terrace and when she went there, accused no.3 is said to have abused her and thrown gas cylinder on her, but she somehow escaped. It is also stated that accused no.3 insisted her to give all the amount and the bank account was opened in the joint name of accused no.1 and the complainant. The accused persons insisted for money and the gold items and it is stated that gold and money as per their demand were not given. However in 2016, accused no.1 and the complainant were transferred to Bengaluru on duty for three years. During that time accused no.1 and the
complainant resided at Bengaluru in a rented house. Accused no.1 harassed the complainant physically and mentally and she was thrown out of the house and he vacated the house without her knowledge and made various allegations. The police after registering the FIR, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet, which is under challenge.
Therefore settlement was not done and therefore there is no serious allegations against the accused persons. Therefore the continuing proceedings against the accused persons is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence he prayed for allowing the petition. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek Vs. State of MP – Crl.A.1457/2015 dated 31.08.2023.
the petition contending that on perusal of the charge sheet materials, there is serious allegation and specific allegations against each of the accused persons. Accused no.2 demanded the money and all the golden ornaments and dowry materials were kept in his custody and he only abused the complainant in the public as prostitute and also contended that accused no.2 insisted to open a joint account in the name of accused no.1 and the complainant in order to be used by them. They have also used the debit card for debiting the money from her account and
accused no.2 harassed the complainant while they were in the house. It is the specific allegation against accused no.3 that she threw the gas cylinder on the complainant, but somehow she escaped. All the three accused persons insisted her to do all the house hold work even though there was fracture on her hip and she was not allowed to take rest. Even when she went to her parents house, she was not allowed to stay there. The accused persons insisted her to give her entire salary to them. There was continuous harassment by accused no.1 to 3 on the complainant. There are specific allegations against them.
Therefore the matter requires trial and the complaint against them cannot be quashed and prays for dismissing the petition.
house, but she was not allowed by the accused persons and she used to come back in the night and do all the house hold work and they used to demand her to pay her entire salary to them. Accused no.2 is said to have insisted her to open a joint account in the name of
accused no.1 and complainant and the account is said to be operated by accused no.1. Accused no.2 is also said to have abused her in filthy language in public talking that she is a prostitute. That apart, there is a specific allegation that the complainant was asked to bring hot water from the terrace as the geyser was under repair. At that time, she was abused in filthy language and accused no.3 threw gas cylinder on the complainant. However she managed to escape. Subsequently, the accused no.1 and respondent no.2 were transferred to Bengaluru in the year 2016 and stayed for three years in Bengaluru. During that time there was continuous quarrel between them and the parents of accused no.1 i.e., accused no.2 and 3 when they visited them at Bengaluru. They harassed the complainant. Therefore she was forced to shift to the official quarters for a short period. At that time accused no.1 sold all the house hold articles without the consent of the complainant and left the house without intimating her, and filed a divorce case in Delhi. Of course there was some negotiation between accused no.1 and the
complainant in the Family Court at Faridabad, after transfer of the case by Hon’ble Supreme Court to Family Court at Faridabad, but the settlement was not arrived at and there was some dispute between them. However respondent no.2 also submits that more than Rs.30 Lakhs was spent towards marriage expenses and all the materials, gold ornaments, utensils, apart from cash are in the house of the accused and are not returned back. Even though the police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet, the investigating officer did not choose to seize these articles and submit them to the court by filing the property file (PF). There is lapse on the part of the investigating officer in not seizing the materials. Even otherwise keeping the dowry articles by the accused attracts Section 6 of the D.P.Act. Though charge sheet is not filed for Section 6 of the D.P.Act, the Trial Court can frame the charges for Section 6 of the D.P.Act also. There is demand of dowry and subsequent to marriage also there is demand of dowry, which attracts Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P.Act. Apart from that there is continuous allegation
by respondent no.2 against the accused persons in the complaint. The statement of the parents of the complainant reveals that there was demand and acceptance of dowry and continuous harassment by the accused persons. It even went to the stage that the accused persons did not leave the second respondent to attend the funeral ceremony of her brother who had sustained injuries in an accident. Such inhuman conduct of the accused persons are seen. Such being the case, even the Supreme Court has held in the case of Abhishek (supra), where this court is aware that when there is no specific allegation against the accused persons and there is only omnibus allegation against the accused persons, the court can quash the FIR and even the charge sheet. This court also invoked the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed various FIRs and charge sheets in many cases, but the facts and circumstances in this case there are specific allegations against accused no.1 to 3 by second respondent and her family members. Therefore I am of the view that when specific allegations are made,
the matter requires for trial. It all depends on the matter other than in respect of settlement etc., the petitioners and the respondent can appear for settlement before the Family Court. This court cannot conduct mini trial while sitting under section 482 Cr.P.C. Even the second respondent has stated that due to harassment she was forced to think about committing suicide three or four times and was avoided by looking at her parents faces.
NC: 2024:KHC:43797 CRL.P No. 7872 of 2021
petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly petition is dismissed.
The interim order as granted by this court is hereby vacated. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any observations made by this Court.
Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE
sd List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act should be quashed for lack of specific allegations.
Whether the Bengaluru court has territorial jurisdiction over offences alleged to have occurred largely in Delhi.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Abhishek v. State of MPReferred¶7
Abhishek Vs. State of MP – Crl.A.1457/2015 dated 31.08.2023
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Sri Nipun Gupta
Sri V.K. Gupta
Smt Mayadevi
State of Karnataka (represented by SHO, Parappana Agrahara Police Station)
Smt Shipra Garg
K. Natarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
