Shri Bharat S/O Ramesh Itagi Vs the State of Karnataka

SMT. TEJASVI W/O. BHARAT ITAGI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. HOUSE NO.105, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, NARAYANPUR, DHARWAD-580002. NOW RESIDING AT: KRISHNA BUILDING, VS KULKARNI COMPOUND, 2^ND CROSS, MALMADDI, DHARWAD-580002.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLLI, ADV. FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN HUBLI-DHARWAD CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION CRIME NO.31/2024 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC IIND COURT, DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A), 504, 506 R/W. 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT IN SO FAR AS THE PRESENT PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 ARE CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8638 CRL.P No. 101312 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶31

Heard Sri. K.L. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State, and Sri. Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – the de facto complainant.

¶32

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.31/2024 of Hubli-Dharwad City Women Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶33

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as

¶34

follows:

¶35

On 07.04.2024, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners, alleging that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.1 on 16.12.2022 at Tekfarm Kalyan Mantap, P.B. Road, Dharwad. At the time of the

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8638 CRL.P No. 101312 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

marriage, her parents given 45 tholas of gold, 3 kg of silver articles, and incurred marriage expenses amounting to Rs.20,00,000/-. Initially, the relationship with petitioner No.1 with the de facto complainant was cordial. However, subsequently, accused Nos.1 to 3 began to harass her both physically and mentally. Moreover, accused No.1 allegedly received Rs.1,08,77,096/- from the complainant and continued to demand more money from her. Consequently, her parents paid Rs.45,37,777/- and managed to provide a total of Rs.95,53,000/- to accused No.1. Despite these payments, accused No.1 continued to harass her, demanding further amounts from her parental house. The situation escalated on 17.12.2023 at 08:00 p.m., when accused No.1 allegedly insulted the complainant in the presence of accused Nos.2 and 3, quarrelled with her, and made criminal threats to eliminate her. As a result, she lodged a complaint, leading to the registration of an FIR and the initiation of an investigation. The petitioners, being aggrieved by this, have filed the current petition.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8638 CRL.P No. 101312 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the case. He argued that the allegations made in the complaint are vague and general, and there are no specific accusations against the petitioners. Additionally, accused Nos.2 and 3 were not involved in the matter and the de facto complainant has not made any direct allegations against them. Therefore, he prayed that the proceedings be quashed.

¶42

The learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the petitioners are involved in the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He argued that there is prima facie material evidence against the petitioners, and hence, at this stage, the proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶43

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently submitted that all the family members of the accused harassed the de facto complainant both physically and mentally. The accused intentionally insulted her to provoke a breach of peace and even threatened to eliminate her.

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8638 CRL.P No. 101312 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Moreover, accused No.1 continued to demand more money from the complainant. Therefore, without conducting a fullfledged trial, the Court cannot quash the proceedings against the petitioners, and thus, he prayed that the petition be rejected.

¶47

Perused the materials available on record. The complaint lodged by the de facto complainant indicates that her parents gave 45 tholas of gold, 3 kg of silver articles, and incurred marriage expenses of Rs.20,00,000/-. Subsequently, accused No.1 allegedly received Rs.1,08,77,096/-, Rs.45,37,777/-, and Rs.95,53,000/- from the complainant. Despite these payments, accused No.1 continued to demand more money and harassed the complainant both physically and mentally, in the presence of accused Nos.2 and 3.

¶48

Upon reviewing the FIR and complaint, it appears that the allegations under Section 498A of the IPC do not apply to accused Nos.2 and 3. As for the charges of Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, intentional insult and criminal intimidation, the prosecution must establish that the accused intentionally insulted the complainant with the intent or knowledge that such

¶49

7 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8638 CRL.P No. 101312 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

provocation would lead to a breach of public peace or lead to the commission of another offence. Simply insulting a person does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Fiona Shrikhande vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr.¹ , at paragraph Nos.13 and 14 has held as under:

¶53

"13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients, viz., (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that

¶54

1 AIR (2014) SC 2013

¶55

8 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8638 CRL.P No. 101312 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC.

¶59

14. We may also indicate that it is not the law that the actual words or language should figure in the complaint. One has to read the complaint as a whole and, by doing so, if the Magistrate comes to a conclusion, prima facie, that there has been an intentional insult so as to provoke any person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, that is sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of Section 504 IPC. It is not the law that a complainant should verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of provoking the other person to commit any other offence. The background facts, circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which they are used, the person or persons to whom they are addressed, the time, the conduct of the person who has indulged in such actions are all relevant factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504 IPC."

¶60

So far as Section 506 of IPC is concerned, in order to satisfy the ingredients of offence of criminal intimidation, there has to be threat of injury to a person, reputation or property of the complainant by the accused, which should be

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8638 CRL.P No. 101312 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

the intention to cause harm to that person or to cause that person to do any act, which is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do so as to avoid the execution of such threat. In the case of Manik Taneja & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Anr.² , the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to examine the ingredients of Sections 503 and 506 of IPC, wherein the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court is as under:

¶64

"The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie, establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.”

¶65

2 (2015) Part 7 SCC 423

¶66

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8638 CRL.P No. 101312 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

In the instant case, the allegations made in the complaint do not prima-facie establish the commission of offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as against petitioner Nos.2 and 3-accused Nos.2 and 3. However, insofar as accused No.1 is concerned, there exists a prima-facie case warranting continuation of proceedings.

¶69

In view of the above observations, continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 – accused Nos.2 and 3 would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the following;

¶70

ORDER

¶71

i) The petition is allowed in part .

¶72

ii) The entire proceedings in Crime No.31/2024 of Hubballi-Dharwad City Women Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34

¶73

of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, insofar as it relates to petitioner

¶74

11 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8638 CRL.P No. 101312 of 2024

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

Nos.2 and 3- accused Nos.2 and 3, are hereby quashed.

¶78

iii) The petition filed by petitioner No.1-accused No.1 is dismissed.

¶79

iv) It is clarified that any observation made in this petition is only for disposal of this petition and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this petition.

¶80

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶81

RSH, AM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Shri Bharat S/O Ramesh Itagi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Bharat S/O Ramesh Itagi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Lavanya W/O Srinivasulu Vs the State of Karnataka

Naveen S/O. Suresh Ugargol Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Ashirvad S/O Srinivas Upadhyaya Vs Smt Rashmi W/O Ashirwad Upadyaya

Chennappa S/O Husenappa Narihala Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Rohit Parasharam Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Raju @ Huliraja S/O Honnurappa Vs the State of Karnataka