Lakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.5014/2022 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAMANAGARA SITTING AT KANAKAPURA IN S.C.NO.5014/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A,307,504,506,114 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT (CR.NO.89/2021 OF WOMEN P.S, RAMANAGARA) AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 5

¶35

have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of

¶36

Criminal procedure to quash the criminal proceedings in S.C.No.5014/2022 on the file of II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagar sitting at Kanakapura, for the

¶37

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32608 CRL.P No. 11519 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

offences punishable under sections 498-A, 307, 504, 506,

¶40

114, r/w 149 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (arising out of Cr.No.89/2021 of Women, PS Ramanagar).

¶41

In support of the petition, petitioners have contended that the allegations made in the charge sheet are false, frivolous and liable to be quashed. There is no supporting evidence to hold that respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty. Matrimonial case is pending in the Court of II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagar, sitting at Kanakapura. Due to vengeance respondent No.2 has filed false complaint. Petitioners are not the relatives of accused No.1 and as such the provisions of Section 498-A are not attracted. They are not the blood relatives of accused No1. Petitioner No.4 is a cancer patient. She is not even able to move around. There are no specific allegations against her. There is no prima facie material to proceed against the petitioners. Continuation of the criminal

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32608 CRL.P No. 11519 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the

¶45

Court and hence the petition.

¶46

In support of her arguments, learned counsel for

¶47

petitioners has relied upon the following decisions:

¶48

(i) Dechamma I.M @ Dechamma Koushik Vs. The State of Karnataka and Anr. ( Dechamma )¹

¶49

(ii) Rajniben D/o Gaurishankar Mevani Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. ( Rajniben )²

¶50

On the other hand, learned High Court

¶51

Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 State and learned counsel representing respondent No.2 would submit that complainant is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1. Their marriage was performed about five years back. It was a love marriage. Their marriage was performed with the blessings of relatives of both side. After the marriage they were residing at Maralvadi in rented house.

¶52

1 SLP(Crl)No.3421/2022 Dt:04.12.2024

¶53

2 Crl.Misc.Appln.14331/2019 Dt:23.04.2025

¶54

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32608 CRL.P No. 11519 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

4.1 However, since three years accused No.1 started

¶57

having illicit relationship with accused No.2, who is his Exlover. He is staying with her and not providing anything for the livelihood of respondent No.2. Accused No.1 is a driver

¶58

in BMTC. Whenever he used to visit the house of complainant, he used to have sexual intercourse with her forcibly. He has captured naked photographs of respondent No.2 and giving threat of uploading them on the Facebook. Despite knowing that accused Nos.1 and 2 are having a relationship, accused Nos.3 to 5, who are the husband and in-laws of accused No.2 Lakshmi are supporting her.

¶59

4.2 At the time of marriage, accused No.1 has demanded and received dowry in a total sum of ₹2,50,000/-. Despite the same accused No.1 at the instigation of accused No.2 used to pester her to get additional dowry of ₹5 lakhs. He was also abusing her saying that she is dark complexioned and not beautiful. On 13.08.2021 at 11.30 p.m, accused No.1 tried to strangle her. Due to ill health, after taking rest for three days, on

¶60

6 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:32608 CRL.P No. 11519 of 2023

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

17.08.2021, she filed complaint. She took treatment at Kanakapura Government Hospital and hence the complaint.

¶64

During the Pendency of the petition, accused No.5 died. As such petition abates so far as against petitioner No.5 is concerned.

¶65

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶66

Thus, in the present petition except accused No.1, the rest of the accused are seeking quashing of criminal proceedings contending that they are not at all the relatives of accused No.1 and as such the provisions of Section 498-A are not attracted against them. They are being falsely implicated and as such continuation of the criminal proceedings against them would amount to abuse of process of the Court.

¶67

It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1. Though it was a love marriage, family members of both bride and bridegroom

¶68

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:32608 CRL.P No. 11519 of 2023

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

consented for their marriage. It is alleged that accused

¶71

No.1 demanded and received dowry in a sum of ₹2,50,000/- which was transferred to his account from the account of mother of respondent No.2. Through the wedlock, they are having a son. It is specifically alleged that after about three years of marriage, prior to the filing of the complaint, accused No.1 started having illicit relationship with his Ex-lover i.e., accused No.2, who is a married woman. Accused Nos.3 to 5 are the husband and parents-in-law of accused No.2. It is alleged that they are also supporting the affair between accused Nos.1 and 2. On account of the illicit relationship and due to the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 5, respondent No.2 is being harassed and ill treated by accused No.1 and he has gone to the extent of making attempt to strangulate respondent No.2.

¶72

Based on the complaint, after conducting

¶73

detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 5. Though accused Nos.2 to 5 are not relatives of accused No.1, either through marriage or through blood

¶74

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:32608 CRL.P No. 11519 of 2023

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

and as such strictly speaking, the provisions of Section 498-A IPC are not attracted so far as accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned, there are specific allegations against them with regard to the other offences and that due to their instigation accused No.1 has committed the alleged offences. While framing charge petitioners may convince the Court that offence punishable under Section 498-A is not attracted to them. The documents placed on record makes out strong prima facie case against the petitioners. The allegations are required to be established by the prosecution in a full fledge trial.

¶77

Petition filed by accused No.1 seeking divorce came to be dismissed by the Family Court. Even the mother of accused No.1 has lodged a complaint with the Women Police Station Ramanagar District that her son i.e., accused No.1 in collusion with accused No.2 is harassing her and taking away all her salary. In the said complaint, she has also referred to the harassment meted out by them to respondent No.2 and her son. The allegations are required

¶78