Dismissed¶70

Praveen Kumar J v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2025CRL.P/11033/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing refused where disputed facts and case-counter-case exist; matrimonial cruelty/dowry prosecution under ss.498A, 313, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and ss.3 & 4 DP Act; full-fledged trial required; counter-case C.C.No.20027/2023 (Cr.No.297/2022); CCTV footage; Karnataka High Court, CRL.P No.11033 of 2023, decided 04-07-2025, J.M.Khazi J.

What did the court decide?

Where there are allegations and counter-allegations and a case and counter-case have been registered with charge sheets on either side, the disputed facts are required to be proved in a full-fledged trial. ¶64

Praveen Kumar J Vs the State of Karnataka by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:24552 CRL.P No. 11033 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11033 OF 2023

¶8

(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

PRAVEEN KUMAR J

¶11

S/O LATE JAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶12

SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O LATE JAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶13

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.181, BHAVANI NAGAR, CHANNANAYAKANAPALAYA, BENGALURU-560073.

¶14

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

USHA J D/O LATE JAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT 14^TH CROSS, NEAR S.R. MEDICALS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. KENCHAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PEENYA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU.

¶20

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:24552 CRL.P No. 11033 of 2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560001.

¶25

SMT. AKSHATHA W/O PRAVEEN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.181, BHAVANI NAGAR, CHANNANAYAKANAPALYA, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560073.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. PONNANNA.M.B., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶28

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER Section 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF THE 31st ACMM BENGALURU OF PEENYA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.1588/2023 (CR.NO.287/2022) FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER Section 498-A,313,323,504,506 READ WITH Section 34 OF IPC AND Section 3,4 OF DP ACT, ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3

¶33

have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against them in C.C.No.1588/2023 on the file of 31^st ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:24552 CRL.P No. 11033 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

498A, 313, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections

¶38

3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act ('DP Act' for short).

¶39

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

¶40

In support of the petition, the accused have contended that they are innocent of the alleged offences. In the FIR, name of accused No.3 does not found place and later in the charge sheet included. The allegations made against the accused are totally false, frivolous, concocted and fabricated. After the marriage, complainant started living with accused Nos.1 and 2. She was in the habit of frequently picking up quarrel with them. At the time of marriage, there was no demand of any dowry. Even after the marriage, no such demand was made. Complainant was not interested in staying with accused No.2 and was demanding accused No.1 to register the said house in her name. When her demand was not accepted, she went to her matrimonial home and staying there.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:24552 CRL.P No. 11033 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

3.1 Accused No.3, who is the married daughter of accused No.2, is living separately with her husband and children. She is not connected to the alleged crime. Unnecessarily she is being dragged into the case. In fact on

¶45

11.03.2022, accused No.1 issued legal notice to the complainant to return to the matrimonial home. On 30.03.2022, though returned to the matrimonial home, she once again went away on 13.04.2022. She has lodged a false complaint, on the basis of which case is registered. In fact, accused No.1 has lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police on 11.04.2022 and endorsement was issued on 24.05.2022. Accused No.1 has also filed M.C.No.2618/2022 for divorce after which the present false complaint is filed. In fact on 02.09.2022, complainant and her gang came to the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 and assaulted them. In this regard, Cr.No.297/2022 is registered and charge sheet in C.C.No.20027/2023 is filed. In the light of the same, the proceedings pending against the petitioners are non-cognizable and hence the petition.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:24552 CRL.P No. 11033 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

On the other hand, learned counsel representing the complainant and learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 State would submit that the marriage of complainant and accused No.1 was celebrated on 14.11.2021 at Bhadravathi. It was an arranged marriage. Within two days of the marriage, the accused person started harassing and ill treating her to get gold and cash. Though at the time of marriage, gold, silver articles weighing 150 gms were given and even though accused Nos.1 and 2 were having own house, they were demanding that if the said house is given on lease, they would get at least ₹3 lakhs.

¶50

Though on the intervention of her parents, they kept quiet for sometime, when she became pregnant, they forced her to abort the child by giving some medicine. On the advice of the doctors, she had to undergo abortion in the nursing home at Bhadravathi. Accused No.1 refused to come to Bhadravathi to give consent and on the other hand sent his consent signature scanned through the phone.

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24552 CRL.P No. 11033 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Immediately accused No.1 sent notice forcing her to join the matrimonial home. Despite the same, the harassment did not stop. Alleging that she do black magic, accused Nos.1 and 2 installed CCTV inside the house. When it became difficult for her to bear the harassment, she filed complaint with Basavanagudi Women's police station.

¶54

In the counseling, accused No.1 undertook to establish a separate house within three months. However, he failed to fulfill the same. When complainant, with her brothers and family members went to her matrimonial home, they were assaulted and tried to close the door. In the light of these developments, the complainant was forced to take recourse of filing the complaint. There is material to proceed against the accused persons. Disputed facts cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶55

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24552 CRL.P No. 11033 of 2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Accused No.1 is the husband of complainant.

¶59

Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the mother and sister of accused No.1. The marriage of accused No.1 and complainant was celebrated on 14.11.2021. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, gold and silver articles totally weighing 150 gms and cash of ₹3 lakhs was paid by way of dowry and marriage was celebrated in a grand manner. Within a short period of marriage, they started harassing and treating the complainant to get additional dowry and when she became pregnant, they forced her to consume some local medicine as a result of which she suffered abortion and had to be admitted to in nursing home at Bhadravathi.

¶60

It is alleged that when she was recuperating from the said shock, accused No.1 choose to give a notice, forcing her to join the matrimonial home immediately. It is also alleged that accused person used to blame complainant that she is doing black magic and installed CCTV camera inside the house. However, once again she was harassed and troubled. When she gave a complaint to

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24552 CRL.P No. 11033 of 2023

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

the Woman police station, Basavanagudi, accused No.1 gave an undertaking to set up a separate house. However he did not fulfill his promise and when complainant along with her family members went to the matrimonial home, she was not allowed and was assaulted.

¶64

With these allegations, the case is registered against the petitioners. In respect of the same incident, the accused persons have also registered a case against the complainant and others and it is registered in Cr.No.297/2022 and charge sheet is filed in C.C.No.20027/2023. In the light of allegations and counter allegations and registering of case and counter case, the disputed facts are required to be proved in a full fledged trial. While the complainant alleged that she was forced to undergo abortion, accused person have contended that complainant left the matrimonial home with all her ornaments and valuables and undergone abortion. The CCTV footage also indicate that complainant along with her family members has manhandled accused No.2 and others.

¶65

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:24552 CRL.P No. 11033 of 2023

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

On the basis of complaints of either party, charge sheets have been filed. These disputed facts cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

(i) Petition filed by the Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is rejected.

¶71

(ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through e-mail.

¶72

Sd/(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE

¶73

RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Praveen Kumar J v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar J v. the State of Karnataka by

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

Smt Nagamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Girijesh R Vs Sujith Narayan

Miss Tamkin Fathima Vs the State of Karnataka

C Moideen Farhad @ Moideen Farhad Chunge Vs Mr Abdulla Udyavar Bellikunhi

G R Charushree Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Sri. Puttarangaswamy Vs State of Karnataka