Dismissed¶47

Sri. Muthu Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2025CRL.P/2887/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru; CRL.P 2887/2023; S.482 CrPC / 528 BNSS quashing petition; FIR Crime No.338/2022 K.R. Puram Police Station; 498-A IPC; Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 S.3 r/w S.34 IPC; 10th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Mayo Hall Bangalore; dismissed for default; no representation for petitioners; office objections not complied; conditional order 16.12.2024; petitioners Muthu Kumar, Nagaraj, Rathinam Nagaraj, Manju (advocate Venkataravanappa G N absent); respondents State of Karnataka and Pavithra (M.R. Patil HCGP); Judge J.M. Khazi; decided 18-06-2025; merits of quashing prayer not adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

No representation appeared for the petitioners in the forenoon or the afternoon session. ¶39

Sri. Muthu Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:21085 CRL.P No. 2887 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2887 OF 2023

¶9

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

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. MUTHU KUMAR

¶12

S/O NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT KOVUGOUNDANPATTI, PERIYAKOTAI, DINDIGUL, TAMIL NADU-624306.

¶13

SRI NAGARAJ

¶14

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

S/O KRISHNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT KOVUGOUNDANPATTI, PERIYAKOTAI, DINDIGUL, TAMIL NADU-624306.

¶16

SMT RATHINAM NAGARAJ W/O NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT KOVUGOUNDANPATTI, PERIYAKOTAI, DINDIGUL, TAMIL NADU-624306.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:21085 CRL.P No. 2887 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SMT MANJU

¶21

W/O MURUGESAN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.107, SEMMANDAMPALAYAM ROAD, VELLAKOVIL KANGAYAM TALUK, VELLALLI(M), TIRUPPUR, TAMIL NADU-638111.

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. VENKATARAVANAPPA G N, ADVOCATE-ABSENT)

¶24

AND:

¶25

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶26

BY K.R.PURAM, P.S REP BY THE STATE OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING ANNEXE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶27

PAVITHRA

¶28

W/O MUTTU KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO.103, 1^ST MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, SWATANTRANAGARA, CHIKKABASAVANPURA, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560036.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP)

¶31

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THIS PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:21085 CRL.P No. 2887 of 2023

¶33

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING THIS HONOURABLE COURT TO PASS NECESSARY ORDERS BY QUASHING FIR IN CRIME NO.338/2022, UNDER SECTION 498-A IPC AND DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961 UNDER SECTION 3 AND READ WITH SECTION 34 IPC FILED BY K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF 10TH ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU, CLEARLY SHOWS LACUNA AND ITS ABUSE OF CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE.

¶36

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

No representation for petitioners.

¶39

No representation for petitioners even in the afternoon session.

¶40

On 16.12.2024, a conditional order was passed to the effect that if office objections are not complied within 10 days, necessary orders would be passed for dismissal of petition.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:21085 CRL.P No. 2887 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Despite the same, office objections are not complied

¶45

with. It appears petitioners are not interested in

¶46

prosecuting the petition.

¶47