Allowed¶64

Prabhakar. B. M. v. State by

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2025CRL.P/250/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.), CRL.P 250/2025, order dt. 19-06-2025: S.482 CrPC petition allowed; criminal proceedings in C.C.335/2024 (Crime No.35/2024; Ss.498A, 506 r/w 34 IPC; Ss.3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) before VII Addl. Sr. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru quashed qua petitioners/accused Nos.2-4 (in-laws); vague, bald, omnibus and general allegations doctrine; relied on Kahkashan Kausar (2022) 6 SCC 599, Abhishek (AIR 2023 SC 4209), Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2621), Digambar (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836); accused No.1/husband not before the Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; entire criminal proceedings in C.C. No.335/2024 (Crime No.35/2024) pending before the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru quashed insofar as the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned. ¶64

Prabhakar. B. M. Vs State by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.335/2024 against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 (in-laws/family members of accused No.1, the husband) rest merely on vague, bald, omnibus and general allegations without specific instances, such that their continuation amounts to abuse of the process of law warranting interference and quashing.

¶57

Court's answer

A perusal of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet material, statements of witnesses and documents leads to the conclusion that the petitioners, being in-laws/family members of accused No.1 (husband), were unnecessarily dragged into the impugned proceedings; the complaint discloses only vague/bald, omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 without revealing specific instances of commission of the offence by them.

¶57

Ratio / Principle

In light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra and Digambar v. State of Maharashtra, continuation of the impugned proceedings against the present petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law warranting interference in the present petition.

¶61

Key takeaways

The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.335/2024, arising out of Crime No.35/2024 registered by respondent No.1 Police for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and pending before the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, stand quashed insofar as the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned.ratio¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (CRL.P No. 250 of 2025) under S.482 CrPC (with parallel reference to S.528 BNSS 2023), decided 19.06.2025 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.): Allowed, and the entire criminal proceedings in C.C. No.335/2024 — arising out of Crime No.35/2024 registered by the Mysuru City Women Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending before the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru — quashed insofar as the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned. The de facto complainant (respondent No.2) had complained on 25.03.2024 against her husband (accused No.1 — son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and brother of petitioner No.3, not a party to this petition) and the in-laws. The Court found the petitioners had been unnecessarily dragged into the proceedings on vague/bald, omnibus and general allegations without specific instances, relying on Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2023 SC 4209), Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2621) and Digambar v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836), and held that continuation of the proceedings against them would amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:21176 CRL.P No. 250 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 250 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

PRABHAKAR B.M. S/O MUTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEAR R/AT NO.2102, SAINT JOSEPH WOMEN COLLEGE OPP. B ZONE, SATHAGALLI LAYOUT, MYSURU CITY-570019

¶11

LAKSHMAMMA W/O PRABHAKAR B.M AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.2102,

¶12

SAINT JOSEPH WOMEN COLLEGE OPP. B ZONE, SATHAGALLI LAYOUT, MYSURU CITY-570019

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

ARPITHA D/O PRABHAKAR B.M. AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.2102,

¶15

SAINT JOSEPH WOMEN COLLEGE OPP. B ZONE, SATHAGALLI LAYOUT, MYSURU CITY-570019

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. SHARATH J.M., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE BY

¶20

MYSURU CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:21176 CRL.P No. 250 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

USHA M

¶25

W/O ASHOK KUMAR P AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NO.844, INDIRAGANDHI ROAD, K.N. PURA, MYSURU NAGARA PIN-570019

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SMT. SOWMYA R, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶28

SRI. NAGENDRA B, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶29

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023) PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.335/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 506, READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, MYSURU, IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 4.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:

¶33

"a) call for the relevant records;

¶34

QUASH the entire criminal proceeding in C.C No.335/2024 for the offence punishable under section 498A, 506, R/W 34 of IPC and 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 now pending on the file of

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21176 CRL.P No. 250 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

VII Addl. senior civil judge and JMFC Court, Mysuru, In respect of petitioner / accused no.2 to 4.

¶38

b) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶40

High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

¶41

The complaint reads as under:

¶42

"UÉ: DgÀPÀëPÀ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ C±ÉÆÃPï S/o Prabhakar ªÀÄ»¼Á ¥ÉÇÃ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉ #2102, B Zone ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ. ¸ËvÀUÀ½î, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ EAzÀ GµÁ JA w/o C±ÉÆÃPï PÀÄªÀiÁgï. P #844, EA¢gÁUÁA¢ü gÀ¸ÉÛ PÉ.J£ï. ¥ÀÅgÀ §qÁªÀuÉ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ-19 ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ: «µÀAiÀÄ: ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ.

¶43

F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ12/05/2023 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀÄ

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:21176 CRL.P No. 250 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DV 10 wAUÀ¼ÁVzÉ. EªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß EµÀÖ¥ÀlÄÖ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. (EzÀÄ Love comes arranges marriage) DzÀgÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ = C±ÉÆÃPï PÀÄªÀiÁgï ¦, CvÉÛ = ®PÀëöäªÀÄä, ªÀiÁªÀ= ¥Àæ¨sÁPÀgï ºÁUÀÆ £Á¢¤ = C¦ðvÀ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÀt vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á JAzÀÄ »A¸É ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÄ. FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ 1 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ºÁUÀÆ 25 UÁæA a£ÀßªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÝÃªÉ. ºÁUÀÆ 4 ®PÀë gÀÆ RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ. £À£ÀUÉ vÀAzÉ E®è wÃjPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ. £À£Àß CtÚ ºÁUÀÆ vÁ¬Ä E§âgÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ. FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ ¸Á® ªÀiÁr ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁr PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ºÀt vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄªÀÅzÀPÉÌ DUÀ®è CAvÀ ºÉÃ½zÁUÀ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ »A¸É ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. ªÉÄrPÀ¯ï ZÉPÀ¥ï ªÀiÁr¸À®Ä £À£ÀUÉ ©qÀ°®è, ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄÃ PÀÆr ºÁQzÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ 3 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÁzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É HospitalUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ qÁPÀÖgï = NON MLC JAzÀÄ ZÉPï ªÀiÁr PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. EzÁzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ Muchual devorce UÉ ¸À» ºÁPÀÄ JAzÀÄ MvÁÛ¬Ä¹zÀgÀÄ. CzÀgÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀÄªÀªÀgÀ §UÉÎ PÉÃ½ w½zÁUÀ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ. CzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ M¥ÀàzÉÃ EzÁÝUÀ ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ DZÉ ºÁQÛÃ« JAzÀÄ ºÉzÀj¹zÀgÀÄ. CzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ «gÉÆÃ¢ü¹zÁUÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁr Ej¹ CªÀ½UÉ ¸Á¬Ä¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ PÉÃ½¹PÉÆArzÉÝÃ£É. EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ªÀÄ»¼Á ¥ÉÇÃ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÉÝ. zÀÆgÀÄ ¤Ãr 1 ªÀgÉ wAUÀ¼Á¬ÄvÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄ CAzÀgÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ¨ÉzÀjPÉAiÀÄ£Éß¯Áè ºÁPÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. EªÀgÀÄ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉUÁV £À£ÀUÉ EµÉÖ¯Áè vÉÆAzÀgÉ ¤ÃrzÁÝgÉ ºÁUÀÆ £À£ÀUÉ C£ÀÄªÀiÁ£À ¥ÀqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21176 CRL.P No. 250 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

§qÉzÀÄ »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄªÀÅzÉ¯Áè ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ. zÀAiÀÄ«lÄÖ £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ zÉÆgÀQ¹ PÀÆr.

¶51

zsÀ£ÀåªÁzÀUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ,

¶52

EAw, ¸À»/-"

¶53

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.2, who is the de facto complainant is the wife of one of the power of attorneys who is none other than the son of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and the brother of petitioner No.3. The respondent No.2 / de facto complainant filed the instant complaint dated 25.03.2024 against her husband / accused No.1 as well as the petitioners / accused Nos.2 to 4 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The said FIR was registered as Crime No.35/2024 and culminated in a charge sheet which is currently pending in C.C. No.335/2024 before the Trial Court.

¶54

It is undisputed that the accused No.1 - husband is not before this Court by way of the present petition which is restricted only to accused Nos.2 to 4.

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21176 CRL.P No. 250 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

A perusal of the material on record comprising of the complaint, First Information Report (FIR), charge sheet material, statements of witnesses, documents etc. will lead to the inescapable conclusion that the petitioners being in-laws / family members of the accused No.1 / husband have been unnecessarily dragged into the impugned proceedings without there being valid allegations made against them in the complaint which disclose only vague / bald, omnibus and general allegations made against the petitioners / accused Nos.2 to 4 without revealing the specific instances of commission of the offence by them. Under these circumstances, in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case/s of: Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam And Others v. State of Bihar and Others [ (2022) 6 SCC 599 ] ; Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2023 SC 4209]; Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2621] and Digambar and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836] , I am of the considered opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the present

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:21176 CRL.P No. 250 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law warranting interference in the present petition.

¶62

In the result, I pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

(i) The Petition is hereby allowed.

¶65

(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.335/2024 arising out of Crime No.35/2024 registered by the respondent No.1 – Police for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and pending on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Mysuru, insofar as the petitioners / accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, are hereby quashed.

¶66

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶67

SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Prabhakar. B. M. v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakar. B. M. v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Venkatesh N C Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Prashanthu K.M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Murali Krishna S., Vs State of Karnataka

Mr M C Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Giriappa Chiranjeeivi Santhosh Shamachar Vs State of Karnataka

Saiyad Majar Vs State of Karnataka