Disposed¶56

Sri Vasudeva Marakala v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2025CRL.P/2078/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, Bengaluru (Mohammad Nawaz J., 24-11-2025), CRL.P No.2078/2025 - Vasudeva Marakala v. State of Karnataka & Anr.: quash petition under S.482 CrPC/S.528 BNSS in matrimonial cruelty case (Ss.498A/323/504/506 IPC; C.C.No.631/2024; Crime No.30/2024, Kundapura PS) disposed of; no quash after charge sheet; averments of cruelty, threat and Rs.3,00,000/- demand sustained; liberty to seek discharge or return on settlement.

What did the court decide?

Petition not allowed; proceedings left undisturbed. Liberty to the petitioner to seek discharge; liberty to the parties to approach this Court upon settlement. ¶56

Sri Vasudeva Marakala Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition not allowed; proceedings left undisturbed. Liberty to the petitioner to seek discharge; liberty to the parties to approach this Court upon settlement.

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C.No.631/2024 (offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC) pending before the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura, are liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

Investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed; no grounds are made to interfere with the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, i.e., quashing is refused.

¶55

Ratio / Principle

The averments in the complaint regarding physical and mental abuse, threat and unlawful demand cannot be brushed aside at this stage as false or baseless.

¶54

Key takeaways

The two complaints earlier lodged by the petitioner against the complainant appear to have been filed on account of differences between the couple arising from the allegation of extra-marital relationship.ratio¶49
It is open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application seeking discharge if there is no material against him in the charge sheet.obiter¶55
It is open to the parties to file a petition before this Court in the event of any settlement, the matter being a matrimonial dispute.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Husband's criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. (filed under S.528 BNSS) seeking quashment of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.631/2024 before the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura, for offences under Ss.498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC (Crime No.30/2024, Kundapura Police Station), instituted on the complaint of his wife. Held: investigation complete and charge sheet filed; complaint averments of physical and mental abuse, threat and demand of Rs.3,00,000/- from the parental home cannot be brushed aside at this stage; the petitioner's earlier complaints (27.01.2022 and 02.03.2022) were attributable to marital discord over the alleged extra-marital affair. Petition disposed of without interference; liberty to seek discharge or to approach the Court upon settlement. (Mohammad Nawaz, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48417 CRL.P No. 2078 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2078 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI VASUDEVA MARAKALA S/O LATE RAMA MARAKALA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT 6-180/6, SHIVASHAKTHI HOUSE, NEAR ASWATHAKATTE UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 257

¶11

&PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KUNDAPURA POLICE STATION, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶16

SMT. NIVEDITA MARAKALA W/O SRI VASUDEVA MARAKALA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT KATTEERA MANE, KORAVADI, KUMBASHI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576257

¶17

&RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. H PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48417 CRL.P No. 2078 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.631/2024 ON THE FILE OF PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT KUNDAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCES ALLEGED UNDER SECTION 498(a), 323, 506 AND 504 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE FILED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE, I.E., KUNDAPURA POLICE STATION, AS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the

¶26

entire proceedings in C.C.No.631/2024, pending before the Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, at Kundapura.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner,

¶28

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

¶29

FIR is registered on a complaint lodged by the 2^nd respondent, wife of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 323, 498(A), 504, 506 of IPC in

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:48417 CRL.P No. 2078 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Crime No.30/2024 of Kundapura Police Station. On

¶34

completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

¶35

Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently contended that the entire allegations in the complaint are false and motivated and it is filed just to harass the petitioner. He contended that prior to registration of the case against the petitioner, there were two complaints

¶36

given to the police by the petitioner wherein the jurisdictional police registered the NCR. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the two complaints, one dated 27.01.2022 and another dated 02.03.2022. It is his contention that it was the complainant herself who was torturing the petitioner for one reason or the other and making false accusations that the petitioner is having an affair with another lady. He contended that the complainant has a habit of threatening the petitioner and

¶37

even tried to commit suicide by consuming phenyl and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a complaint to the police bringing to their notice about all

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:48417 CRL.P No. 2078 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

these incidents. He submitted that the petitioner has been regularly taking complainant to the Doctor for check-up and for treatment. He further submitted that the couple has a 17 years older daughter now being taken care of by the petitioner. He further submitted that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and without assigning any proper reasons, the complaint is lodged making false and baseless allegations. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner has not only driven the complainant out of the house, but he has virtually manhandled her and also assaulted, abused etc. Further, he demanded the complainant to bring money from the parental home thereby making unlawful demands. He contended that in the complaint itself, it is stated that the petitioner is having an extra marital affair,

¶42

due to which the petitioner has not only neglected the complainant but subjected her to cruelty, thereby attracting the ingredients of the charge sheeted offences.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:48417 CRL.P No. 2078 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Learned HCGP contended that during the course

¶47

of investigation, the statements of the witnesses have

¶48

been recorded and based on the materials collected, the charge sheet is now filed and therefore, there is a primafacie case against the petitioner.

¶49

Perused the complaint averments which reveals that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2/defacto complaint took place on 10.07.2005. The allegations are that the petitioner subsequently developed an extra marital relationship and started harassing the complainant. There are averments to the effect that he has not only abused but physically assaulted and threatened the complainant and even demanded to bring Rs.3,00,000/- from her parental home. It is no doubt, the petitioner has filed two complaints to the police alleging that the complainant has threatened to commit suicide etc. It appears that due to the differences between the

¶50

couple, as there was an allegation of extra marital relationship, such complaints are filed. However, the

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:48417 CRL.P No. 2078 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

averments in the complaint regarding physical and mental abuse, threat, unlawful demand etc., cannot be brushed aside at this stage holding that all those averments are false or baseless. The investigation is already completed

¶55

and charge sheet is filed. No grounds are made to interfere with the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. It is open for the petitioner to file an appropriate application seeking discharge, if there are no material against him in the charge sheet. It is also open for the parties to file a petition before this Court if there is any settlement considering the fact that the matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute.

¶56

With the above observation petition is disposed of .

¶57

I.A.No.2/2025 is disposed of.

¶58

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶59

KLY CT: JL

Sri Vasudeva Marakala v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vasudeva Marakala v. the State of Karnataka

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 Dhruvakumar Vs Smt. Padma N

Manjunath H N Vs State by Karnataka

Reza Froudineh Vs the State by East Women Ps

Sri Dalapath Singh Vs State by Ccb (Eow) Squad Police

Mr. Nawaz @ Nawaz Sharif Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Gundegowda Vs the State of Karnataka