Dismissed¶84

Shashank v. the State

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2025CRL.P/200354/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 BNSS; BNS 2023 Sections 85, 115, 351, 352, 3(5); Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 Sections 3 and 4; IPC Sections 498(A), 321, 503, 504, 34; matrimonial cruelty and dowry complaint; separate residence of petitioner Nos.2-4; address proof before Investigating Officer; fair investigation; no mini trial at threshold; adverse report challengeable; Kalaburagi City Women Police Station; Crime No.11/2025; FIR No.291/2025; II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Kalaburagi; Mangaly Chain; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; petition dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to place documents including address proof of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 before the Investigating Officer and to challenge any adverse report in accordance with law. ¶84

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶84

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.11/2025 registered against the petitioners (Accused Nos.1 to 4) for offences under Ss.85, 115, 351, 352, 3(5) BNS 2023 and Ss.3 & 4 DP Act 1961, and the proceedings/investigation thereon, should be quashed, given the contention that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were not residing with petitioner No.1. +1 more

¶65

Court's answer

Since only the criminal case is registered and investigation is not yet completed, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are at liberty to place all necessary documents, including address proof, before the Investigating Officer.

¶77

Ratio / Principle

Investigation is to be conducted fairly; if the material documents placed on record would not make out a case against petitioner Nos.2 to 4, the investigating agency has to file an appropriate report in accordance with law.

¶81

Key takeaways

If any adverse report affecting the petitioners' rights is filed, the petitioners can challenge such report in accordance with law.ratio¶82
The Court declined to quash the FIR at the threshold and dismissed the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioners to place their documents before the Investigating Officer.ratio¶84

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench (V. Srishananda, J.), 07.07.2025, CRL.P No. 200354 of 2025: Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS by the husband and three family members seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No.11/2025 of Kalaburagi City Women P.S. (Ss.85, 115, 351, 352, 3(5) BNS 2023; Ss.3 & 4 DP Act 1961; correspondingly Ss.498(A), 321, 503, 504 r/w 34 IPC), registered on 24.01.2025 on the wife's complaint alleging dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and 10 tola of gold (text reads 'told'), harassment, taking away of the Mangaly Chain, and demands of Rs.1,00,00,000 and Rs.2,00,00,000 towards marriage expenses. Petitioner Nos.2-4 pleaded separate residence from petitioner No.1, producing documents and medical records. The Court declined to try the veracity of those documents by holding a mini trial at the threshold; it permitted the petitioners to place address proof and other documents before the Investigating Officer, observed that investigation must be conducted fairly and that an appropriate report must follow if the documents do not make out a case against petitioner Nos.2-4, and reserved liberty to challenge any adverse report; the petition was dismissed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3681 CRL.P No. 200354 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200354/2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHASHANK S/O SHIVARAJ AMMAN AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER R/O: H.NO.10-3/14, VITHAL NAGAR, KALABURAGI – 585102.

¶11

SMT. LAXMI

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMITRA SHERIGAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

W/O SHIVARAJ AMMAN, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: NIL R/O: H.NO.10-3/14, VITHAL NAGAR, KALABURAGI – 585102.

¶14

3. SMT. SWETA

¶15

W/O AJAY CHIDRI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O: DATTAGIRI COLONY, ZAHEERABAD–502228, (TELENGANA).

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3681 CRL.P No. 200354 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

RAGHAVENDRA S/O M. LAXMINARAYAN GUPTA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.1-253, NEAR MOTHER TERESSA HOSTEL, BELUR CROSS, HUMNABAD ROAD, KALABURAGI – 585104.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI NANDKISHORE BOOB, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE STATE, THROUGH CITY WOMEN P.S., KALABURAGI NOW REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. SPP, HCK KALABURAGI.

¶23

SMT. JYOTHI W/O SHASHANK AMMAN (D/O SUBHASHRAO GANDAGE) AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: WORKING IN PRIVATE CO. LTD., R/O: H.NO.B-105, SAROJ APARTMENT, RAM NAGAR, AUSA ROAD, LATUR - 413531 (MAHARASHTRA) NOW AT: NANDEDGAO TQ: HAVELI, DIST: PUNE.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP, FOR R1; SRI AMARNATH M., ADVOCATE, FOR R2)

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3681 CRL.P No. 200354 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.11/2025 OF KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN P.S., KALABURAGI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 85, 115, 351, 352, READ WITH 3(5) OF BNS, 2023 (UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 321, 503 & 504 R/W 34 OF IPC) AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 D.P. ACT, 1961, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALABURAGI, (IN FIR NO.291/2025) AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

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

¶33

Heard Sri Nandkishore Boob, learned counsel

¶34

for the petitioners, Sri Amarnath M., learned counsel for the second respondent and Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent-State.

¶35

This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS

¶36

(482 Of Cr.P.C.), with the following prayer:

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3681 CRL.P No. 200354 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

“WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to Quash the FIR and Complaint in Crime No. 11 / 2025 of Women City PS, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable U/s. 85, 115, 351, 352, 3(5) of BNSS, 2023, (U/s. 498(A), 321, 503 & 504 R/w 34 IPC) and 3 & 4 DP Act, 1961, pending on the file of Hon'ble IInd Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kalaburagi (in FIR No. 291/2025), against the Petitioners / A.Nos. 1 to 4, by allowing this petition, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶40

Facts in nutshell for disposal of the present

¶41

petition are as under:

¶42

3.1 A complaint came to be lodged by the second respondent against the petitioners herein with Kalaburagi City Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, on 24.01.2025, which was registered in Crime No.11/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115, 351, 352, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3681 CRL.P No. 200354 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

3.2 Gist of the complaint averments would reveal

¶46

that the first petitioner is the husband of the second respondent having married him on 27.11.2022. It was a love marriage. According to the complainant, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was given as dowry for purchase of clothes apart from 10 tola of told to the petitioners.

¶47

3.3 It is contended in the complaint that the fact of a daughter being there in the earlier marriage to the complainant – second respondent has been brought to the notice of the first petitioner and despite the same, marriage proposal was confirmed.

¶48

3.4 After the marriage there was a happy married

¶49

life for about 4-5 months and thereafter, there were bickerings in the matrimonial tie.

¶50

3.5 When the matter stood thus, on 13.06.2023 all the petitioners joined together and harassed the complainant by taking away the Mangaly Chain and sent

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3681 CRL.P No. 200354 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

her out of the matrimonial house. Thereafter, the

¶55

complainant went to her parental house.

¶56

3.6 On 17.06.2023 there was a call from the first

¶57

petitioner to join him and accordingly she went to the matrimonial house.

¶58

3.7 At that juncture, first petitioner and his friends forced her to sign divorce papers and Rs.1,00,00,000/has to be repaid towards the marriage expenses.

¶59

3.8 Again on 03.08.2024 at about 2.20 p.m.,

¶60

complainant along with her parents visited the house of the petitioner and all the petitioners picked up the quarrel and held the shirt collar of the father of the complainant and assaulted him and also abused the complainant and her parents in filthy language and also demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- as the compensation for the marriage

¶61

expenses.

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3681 CRL.P No. 200354 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Based on the complaint, police registered the

¶65

case and after thorough investigation charge-sheet came to be filed.

¶66

The police after registering the case, are investigating the case. In the meantime, the challenge now is tobe very registration of the FIR on the ground that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are not residing with the first petitioner. To substantiate the same, the documents are filed.

¶67

Sri Nandkishore Boob, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that since the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are not residing along with the first petitioner, proceeding with the criminal case and investigation pursuant to the FIR is totally uncalled for and would result in abuse of process of law and sought to allow the petition.

¶68

Per contra, Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader and Sri Amarnath M., learned counsel for the respondents oppose the same.

¶69

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3681 CRL.P No. 200354 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

They would also contend that the veracity of

¶73

the documents that has been placed before this Court cannot be decided by this Court by holding a mini trial and therefore, petition is to be dismissed.

¶74

Having heard the arguments on both sides, this

¶75

Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶76

On such perusal of the material on record, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 want to contend that they lived separately. To substantiate the same, the documents are also produced before the Court. Apart from the same, it is document filed on behalf of the petitioners would depict that second petitioner is suffering from serious ailments and medical records are also produced.

¶77

Taking note the fact that only criminal case is registered and investigation is not yet completed, petitioners are at liberty to place all the necessary documents including address proof of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 before the Investigating Officer.

¶78

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3681 CRL.P No. 200354 of 2025

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

It is settled principles of law and requires no

¶81

emphasis that investigation is to be conducted fairly and if the material documents placed on record would not make out a case against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 as is contended by the petitioners herein, necessarily the investigation agency has to file appropriate report in accordance with law.

¶82

If there is any adverse report, which would effect rights of the petitioners herein, they can very well challenge such report in accordance with law.

¶83

Reserving such liberty for the petitioners, the

¶84

petition is dismissed.

¶85

Sd/(V. SRISHANANDA)

¶86

JUDGE

¶87

SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT:NI

Shashank v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashank v. the State

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

Arvind Vs the State of Karnataka

Madiwalappa and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Chandrashekar Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajshekhar and Ors. Vs the State through and Anr.

Tukaram Hangaragi Vs the State through

Mohammed Afaaqaue Ahmed and Ors. Vs the State through and Anr.