Dismissed¶48

Chandrashaker G v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2025CRL.P/10596/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), 23-09-2025, Sachin Shankar Magadum J — CRL.P 10596/2025: in-laws' S.482 CrPC quashing petition against charge-sheet in C.C.214/2017 (S.498-A IPC; Ss.3,4 DP Act, Madivala PS / 39th ACMM) dismissed; prior divorce decree M.C.No.4049/2016 (cruelty, S.13(1)(i-a) HMA; findings against husband and in-laws) lent prima facie support to the wife's allegations and trial had commenced, so the belated plea of false implication/vague allegations was rejected.

What did the court decide?

This Court is not persuaded to accept the contention of the petitioners that they are falsely implicated. ¶41

Chandrashaker G Vs State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:38288 CRL.P No. 10596 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10596 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHANDRASHAKER G AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O. GURUMUTHAPPA.

¶10

SMT. RAJALAKSHMI K AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O. CHANDRASHAKER.G PETITIONER NO.1 TO 2 RESIDING AT NO.395, 15TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, 6TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA - 560 102

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI. SURESH S.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADIVALA POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

HARSHITHA RAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:38288 CRL.P No. 10596 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

W/O SUMANTH.C 395, 15TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN SECTOR 6, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 102.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.214/2017 OF MADIVALA POLICE BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 498-A OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF DP ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 39th ACMM BENGALURU CITY AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE D.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The order dated 18.09.2025 is recalled.

¶28

This petition is filed by the in-laws seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.214/2017 on the file of the 39^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38288 CRL.P No. 10596 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

The second respondent, who is the daughter-inlaw of the petitioners, has lodged a complaint alleging acts of ill-treatment and harassment not only at the hands of her husband but also at the hands of the present petitioners, who are her in-laws. Acting upon the said written complaint, a crime came to be registered, and after investigation, the police have filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners. The petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, contending that they have been falsely implicated and that the allegations made in the complaint are a concocted story set up by the second respondent.

¶32

It is the specific case of the petitioners that, on the contrary, it was the daughter-in-law who had physically assaulted the second petitioner, and therefore, it is the in-laws who are the actual sufferers at the hands of the second respondent. They would further contend that the allegations levelled in the complaint are vague, general in nature, and bereft of specific instances of cruelty. They

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38288 CRL.P No. 10596 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

also submit that the second respondent is in the habit of lodging false complaints not only against her husband but also against the in-laws with an intention to harass them. On these grounds, they seek quashing of the proceedings.

¶36

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and carefully perused the charge-sheet records. This Court has also taken note of the matrimonial proceedings initiated by the second respondent in M.C.No.4049/2016 on the file of the Family Court, Bengaluru, wherein she sought dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty.

¶37

Though ordinarily, this Court is considerate in scrutinizing allegations made against in-laws in matrimonial disputes, in the present case, the Family Court, upon appreciation of the material placed before it, has allowed the petition filed by the second respondent and granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38288 CRL.P No. 10596 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The judgment in M.C.No.4049/2016 records that the second respondent/wife was subjected to cruelty not only by the husband but also by the present petitioners. Significantly, the husband of the second respondent, who is the son of the petitioners herein, chose not to contest the matrimonial proceedings. The Family Court, therefore, while dissolving the marriage, recorded findings adverse to both the husband and the in-laws.

¶41

In this background, this Court is not persuaded to accept the contention of the petitioners that they are falsely implicated. On the contrary, the findings in the matrimonial proceedings lend prima facie support to the allegations made by the second respondent in the present criminal case. That apart, the learned HCGP, on instructions, submits that the trial has already commenced.

¶42

Having regard to the stage of the proceedings, this Court is of the view that the petitioners, by filing the

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:38288 CRL.P No. 10596 of 2025

¶44

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

present petition, are making a belated attempt to seek indulgence of this Court. Such an attempt, when the trial has already commenced and there exists material in the

¶47

form of a prior judicial finding, cannot be entertained.

¶48

Accordingly, the criminal petition stands dismissed.

¶49

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶50

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Chandrashaker G v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashaker G v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjunatha a Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Akhilesh N Vs the State of Karnataka

Rakesha K.C. Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr K Asha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Obinna Francis Okoli Vs the Intelligence Officer

Smt N S Shilpa Vs the State of Karnataka