Surekha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2025CRL.P/200156/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of cognizance; S.482 Cr.P.C.; S.528 BNSS 2023; S.498-A, 323, 354, 504, 506, 109 r/w S.34 IPC; Ss.3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act 1961; mother-in-law as A-2; dowry demand and harassment allegations; mini trial not permissible in quashing jurisdiction; liberty to seek discharge; C.C.No.4836/2023; Crime No.20/2023 Kalaburagi City Women Police Station; High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench; decided 03.07.2025 by V Srishananda, J.; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Whether the present petitioner was directly or indirectly responsible for the alleged physical and mental harassment so as to attract Section 498-A cannot be decided by this Court by holding a mini trial. ¶9

Surekha Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶ORDER

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner (arrayed as accused No.2, the mother-in-law) pursuant to cognizance in C.C.No.4836/2023 should be quashed — i.e., whether she was directly or indirectly responsible for the alleged physical and mental harassment so as to attract Section 498-A.

¶9

Court's answer

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The marriage of respondent No.2 with the son of the petitioner, and the serious bickerings in the matrimonial relationship resulting in the criminal complaint and charge-sheet, are not in dispute.

¶9

Key takeaways

The petitioner is reserved liberty to urge her available defence and to file a necessary application seeking discharge.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (CRL.P No. 200156 of 2025) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (captioned as filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023) by the mother-in-law of the de facto complainant (petitioner/A-2 as per charge sheet) seeking quashing of the order of taking cognizance dated 27.07.2023 in C.C.No.4836/2023 on the file of the 1st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime No.20/2023 of Kalaburagi City Women Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 504, 506, 109 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Held: the marriage of respondent No.2 with the petitioner's son and the matrimonial discord resulting in the complaint and charge-sheet being undisputed, whether the petitioner was directly or indirectly responsible for the alleged physical and mental harassment so as to attract Section 498-A cannot be decided by this Court by holding a mini trial. Petition dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to urge available defence and to file an application seeking discharge.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3612 CRL.P No. 200156 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶5

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶6

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200156 OF 2025

¶10

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

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SUREKHA W/O SHIVASHARANAPPA, AGE:65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. H NO 1-891/84/2/130, JANATA LAYOUT, KARUNESHWAR NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585103.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. SHRAVAN KUMAR MATH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH, KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI CITY, NOW REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH -585103.

¶18

SMT. RATNAKALA W/O RAGHVENDRA KANTYAL, AGE:27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BHAGYAVANTI NAGAR, BEHIND NEW AMANTRANA NEXT HOTEL, OLD JEWARGI ROAD, KALABURAGI -585102

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S. A. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3612 CRL.P No. 200156 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 528 OF BNSS,2023 PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 27.07.2023 PASSED IN C.C NO. 4836/2023. PASSED BY HON’BLE 1^ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KALABURAGI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 498A, 323, 354, 504, 506 109 R/W 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND U/SEC 3 AND 4 DOWRY ACT (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.20/2023 OF KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION) CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE 1^ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KALABURAGI IN C.C NO.4836/2023 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER /A-2 (AS PER CHARGE SHEET) IS CONCERNED.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

¶29

Heard Sri. Shravan Kumar Math, learned counsel

¶30

appearing for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State and Sri. S.A.Kumbar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶31

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for the following reliefs:

¶32

“Wherefore, it is prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3612 CRL.P No. 200156 of 2025

¶34

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

the order of taking cognizance dated 27.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.4836/2023 passed by Hon’ble Ist Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi for the offences punishable U/S 498-A, 323, 354, 504, 506, 109 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and U/S. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (arising out of Crime No.20/2023 of Kalaburagi City Women Police Station) consequently quash the proceedings, now pending on the file of the Hon’ble I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi in C.C.No.4836/2023, insofar as petitioner/A-2 (as per charge sheet) is concerned in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶37

The facts in brief which are utmost necessary for

¶38

disposal of the present petition are as under:

¶39

3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with Kalaburagi Women Police Station by Smt. Ratnakala-respondent No.2 on 23.02.2023 which was registered in Crime No.20/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 504, 506, 109 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶40

3.2. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal

¶41

that, the respondent No.2 was married to accused No.1 who is the son of the present petitioner by name Raghavendra

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3612 CRL.P No. 200156 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

and after a brief period there were serious differences in the matrimonial relationship on account of demand of dowry.

¶46

3.3. There were also physical and mental harassment

¶47

to the respondent No.2 and therefore, she sought for action.

¶48

After registering the case, the police after thorough investigation filed charge-sheet, cognizance of which is now taken and pending in C.C.No.4836/2023 before the Jurisdictional Magistrate at Kalaburagi.

¶49

The petitioner being the mother-in-law of the respondent No.2, sought for quashing of the proceedings by stating that, she had no role in the alleged harassment and continuation of the proceedings against her would result in miscarriage of justice.

¶50

It is also contended that, since the respondent No.2 was living in Hyderabad, there is no question of any harassment directly or indirectly by the present petitioner to the respondent No.2 and sought for allowing the petition.

¶51

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3612 CRL.P No. 200156 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supports continuation of the criminal proceedings by contending that, the contentions urged in the petition are all matter of evidence and that cannot be decided by this Court by holding a mini trial and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶54

Having heard the arguments from both sides, this

¶55

Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶56

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that, the marriage of the respondent No.2 with the son of the petitioner is not in dispute, so also, the serious bickerings in the matrimonial relationship resulting in filing of the criminal complaint and filing charge-sheet is not in dispute. Whether at all the present petitioner is directly or indirectly is responsible for the alleged physical and mental harassment so as to attract Section 498-A or not, cannot be decided by this Court by holding a mini trial.

¶57