Allowed¶46

Sri. Subramanya v. Vs Renuka Nayak H

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2025CRL.P/11580/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Justice Mohammad Nawaz, 08.04.2025), CRL.P No. 11580 of 2022, quashes charge sheet in Spl.C.No.801/2021 (Crime No.40/2020, Basavanagudi Women PS) under Ss.417, 420, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and S.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) SC/ST (POA) Act against parents and brother of principal accused in a false-promise-of-marriage case; vague allegations, ingredients absent, abuse of process; S.482 Cr.P.C.; proceedings continue against accused No.1.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the entire charge sheet in Spl.C.No.801/2021 quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned, with proceedings to continue against accused No.1 in accordance with law. ¶46

Sri. Subramanya v Vs Renuka Nayak H — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; the entire charge sheet in Spl.C.No.801/2021 quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned, with proceedings to continue against accused No.1 in accordance with law.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in Spl.C.No.801/2021 against the petitioners (parents and brother of accused No.1) should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

Registration of the FIR and filing of the charge sheet against the petitioners is an abuse of process of the Court.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

Allegations against the petitioners — that they assured the complainant they would perform her marriage with accused No.1 and thereafter abused her over phone — are vague.

¶39

Key takeaways

The gist of the allegation is breach of promise of marriage by accused No.1, who is not before the Court; the petitioners are only his parents and brother, and the complaint averments, if taken at face value, do not fulfil the ingredients of the offences alleged against them.ratio¶41
The criminal proceedings shall continue as against accused No.1 in accordance with law.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. — Quashing of charge sheet — Offences under Ss.417, 420, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (Spl.C.No.801/2021, arising from Crime No.40/2020, Basavanagudi Women Police Station) — Core allegation is breach of promise of marriage by accused No.1, who is not before the Court — Petitioners are only his parents and brother; accusations against them limited to a purported assurance to perform the marriage and abusive telephone calls, described by the Court as vague — Complaint averments, taken at face value, do not fulfil the ingredients of the offences qua the petitioners — Registration of FIR and filing of charge sheet against the petitioners held to be an abuse of process of the Court — Entire charge sheet quashed insofar as petitioners are concerned; trial to continue against accused No.1.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:15368 CRL.P No. 11580 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11580 OF 2022

¶8

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

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. SUBRAMANYA V S/O LATE VEERSWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶11

SMT. MALLAMMA W/O SUBRAMANYA V AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

PETITIONERS NOS.1 & 2 ARE R/O NO.51 8^TH MAIN, TATA SILK FARM, THYAGARAJANAGAR, BANGALORE-560028.

¶14

SRI. SANJAY S S/O SUBRAMANYA V AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, NO.84, 9^TH MAIN, TATA SILK FARM, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. V. MAHESHA., ADV. FOR SRI. A. HANUMANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:15368 CRL.P No. 11580 of 2022

¶19

AND:

¶20

RENUKA NAYAK H D/O HANUMANTHA NAGOLI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS NO.18 1^ST A CROSS, SONNENAHALLI MARUTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560025.

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BASAVANAGUDI POLICE STATION BANGALORE, REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. ADITYA D.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA., HCGP FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.801/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 417, 420, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(R)(S) OF SC/ST(POA) ACT OF RESPONDENT NO.2/POLICE (IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED).

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶26

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:15368 CRL.P No. 11580 of 2022

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Petitioners are seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in Spl.C.No.801/2021 pending on the file of the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru .

¶32

Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.

¶33

Crime No.40/2020 was registered at

¶34

Basavanagudi Women Police Station for the offence Punishable under Section 506, 504, 420 and 417 of IPC, on a complaint lodged by respondent No.1 against accused Nos.1 to 4. Charge sheet is filed for the above offences as well as under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST(Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 2015.

¶35

A plain reading of the complaint dated 14.07.2020 reveals that accused No.1, with a false promise of marriage, developed physical relationship with

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:15368 CRL.P No. 11580 of 2022

¶38

the complainant and later refused to marry and cheated her.

¶39

Vague allegations are made that when the matter was informed over phone to the petitioners i.e., the parents and brother of accused No.1, they gave assurance to the complainant that they will perform her marriage with accused No.1 and thereafter, abused her over phone in filthy language etc.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, contended that in the further statement of the complainant as well as the statement of her brother, they have stated that even these petitioners have abused the complainant in filthy language etc. and therefore, the ingredients of the offences alleged are made out against the petitioners.

¶41

The gist of the allegation is breach of promise of marriage by accused No.1. The said accused is not before the Court. Petitioners are his parents and brother. The complaint averments if taken on its face value, does not fulfill the ingredients of the offences alleged against the

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15368 CRL.P No. 11580 of 2022

¶43

petitioners. Having perused the entire materials on record, I am of the considered view that registration of FIR and filing of charge sheet against the petitioners is an abuse of process of the Court. Hence, the following:-

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) Petition is allowed .

¶46

ii) The entire charge sheet in Spl.C.No.801/2021 pending on the file of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru insofar as the petitioners are concerned is quashed.

¶47

iii) The proceedings shall continue as against accused No.1 in accordance with law.

¶48

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶49

LDC

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri. Subramanya v. Vs Renuka Nayak H

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Subramanya v. Vs Renuka Nayak H

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. O R Akshay Vs the State of Karnataka

Gowrish B. Sugur Vs the Station House Officer

Shivakumar. N Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Jay Ramani Vs State of Karnataka

Smt N Manjula Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Prashanth Vs State of Karnataka