Mr. Kaushik. S. Raj Vs the State of Karnataka

MR. KAUSHIK S. RAJ S/O M. S. SUGANDHARAJ, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. 732, 15^TH A MAIN ROAD, H.S.R.LAYOUT, SECTOR 3, BENGALURU - 560 102. PHONE. NO. 9986278111 EMAIL ID. [email protected]

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SUDHINDRA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MYSURU CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

MRS. Y. K. YASHASWINI W/O MR. KAUSHIK S. RAJ, D/O MR. KENCHEGOWDA Y.K. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.68, 10^TH CROSS, JCST, M BLOCK, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSURU CITY, KARNATAKA, PH NO. 8722301083 EMAIL. ID. [email protected]

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:31368 CRL.P No. 11734 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.60/2025 REGISTERED BY THE WOMEN P.S., MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 85, 352, 351(3) R/W 3(5) OF BNS 2023 AND SEC. 3, 4 OF D.P ACT 1961 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE 7^TH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND J.M.F.C COURT MALALAVADI, JAYANAGAR MYSURU.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed by husband seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No. 60/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 85, 352, 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending on the file of 7^th Additional Senior Civil Judge(Sr.Dn) and JMFC Court, Malalavadi, Jayanagar, Mysuru.

¶24

Respondent No.2/complainant has lodged a complaint alleging harassment at the hands of petitioner/husband and also mother-in-law and sister-inlaw. On receipt of written complaint, the jurisdictional

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:31368 CRL.P No. 11734 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

police have registered the crime in Crime No. 0060/2025 and now the matter is pending investigation.

¶29

This petition is filed by the husband, primarily questioning the timing of the complaint lodged by the wife. The petitioner, relying on the records, contends that the complaint came to be lodged only after he filed M.C. No.3201/2025 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, and therefore, it is nothing but a counterblast to the said matrimonial case. While there may be some element of truth in the contention that the complaint was lodged as a retaliatory measure, it is equally settled that when a woman approaches the jurisdictional police alleging that she has been subjected to cruelty, the minimum that is expected is to allow the Investigating Officer to conduct a fair investigation and submit a report.

¶30

Though, at first glance, the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 may appear to have been triggered by

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31368 CRL.P No. 11734 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

the petitioner’s matrimonial case, this Court, at this stage,

¶34

is not inclined to grant the relief sought. Once a complaint is lodged by a wife alleging cruelty, it is for the Investigating Officer to investigate and place the facts before the competent court. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to interdict the investigation in Crime No.60/2025 at the threshold.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a software engineer and a respected member of society, but the Investigating Officer, under the guise of investigation, has been repeatedly summoning

¶36

him to the police station and making him wait there for long hours without sufficient justification. In this regard, it is observed that in cases involving matrimonial disputes, particularly those under Section 498-A of the IPC, the Investigating Officer is expected to act with due sensitivity and professionalism. While collecting necessary information from the petitioner, the Investigating Officer

¶37