Dr.Sheela Sundar Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1318 CRL.P No. 383 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 383 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DR. SHEELA SUNDAR D/O LATE SUNDAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: DENTIST, EMPLOYED IN PVT. COMPANY R/AT ARNAV NIVAS, 2^ND CROSS, SARATHI NAGAR, J.P. NAGAR, 8^TH PHASE, BENGALURU CITY-560 108.

¶8

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka

¶9

DR. RAGHUNANDAN S/O AJIT KUMAR NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC-MEDICAL PRACTITIONER MEDICAL DIAGNOSTICS AND SPECIALTY CENTRE, NAGARBHAVI MAIN ROAD, MANASA NAGAR 2^ND BLOCK, BENGALURU CITY-560 072.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. DHIRAJ A.K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY P.S.I. BASAVANAGUDI, WOMEN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU,

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:1318 CRL.P No. 383 of 2022

¶16

REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-580 011

¶17

SHWETHA V BHAT, W/O RAGHAVENDRA P BHAT, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.152, 4^TH CROSS, SARATHI NAGAR, J.P. NAGAR, 8^TH PHASE, BENGALURU CITY -560 108

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1; R2 - SERVED AND UN-REPRESENTED)

¶20

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.222/2021 BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,504 OF IPC R/W SEC.4 OF D.P ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 37TH A.C.M.M COURT AT BENGALURU.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioners being accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.222/2021 of Basavanagudi Police Station, pending on the file of the 37^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, for the offences P/U/S 498A, 504 of IPC, are

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:1318 CRL.P No. 383 of 2022

¶28

seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.1 filed the first information against accused Nos.1 to 5, making elaborate allegations. Accused No.1 is said to be the husband of respondent No.2. Accused No.2 is his brother and accused No.5 is said to be the relative of accused No.1. It is stated that these petitioners being accused Nos.3 and 4 are the friends of accused No.1. Respondent No.2 made allegations against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 504 of IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The allegations are mainly against accused Nos.1, 2 and 5. It is stated that accused No.3 being the owner of house and the colleague of accused No.1 had intimate relationship with him. It is also stated that accused No.4 being the friend of accused No.1 had visited the house and had videographed the incident, where accused No.1 manhandled respondent No.2. Therefore, she requested the Police to register a case and to initiate legal action. Accordingly, the Police have registered the case in Crime No.222/2021 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station and took up investigation. In the meantime, petitioners being

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:1318 CRL.P No. 383 of 2022

¶32

accused Nos.3 and 4 are before this Court, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. Interim order of stay was granted and therefore, it is stated that no further investigation was undertaken.

¶33

Heard Sri. Dhiraj A.K., learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the material on records.

¶34

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶35

“Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"

¶36

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶37

R E A S O N S

¶38

It is the specific contention of respondent No.2 that she married accused No.1 and he along with the co-accused,

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:1318 CRL.P No. 383 of 2022

¶41

started ill-treating her and treated her with cruelty, demanded and received dowry. The materials on record discloses that accused No.3 is the colleague of accused No.1 and the allegation made against her is that she was having intimate relationship with Accused No.1. Accused No.4 is said to be the friend of accused No.1 and it is stated that when accused No.1 was ill-treating respondent No.2 and was manhandling her, he had videographed the incident on one occasion. Apart from this, there are no other allegations against both the petitioners.

¶42

Section 498A of IPC refers to 'cruelty by husband and relatives of husband'. There is specific reference to 'husband' and 'relatives of husband', who could be prosecuted for the offence of treating the wife with cruelty. When admittedly the petitioners are not the relatives of accused No.1 and it is stated that they are only colleague and friend of accused No.1, learned High Court Government Pleader is not in a position to justify registration of the criminal case against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in U. SUVETHA Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:1318 CRL.P No. 383 of 2022

¶46

ANOTHER¹ , in support of his contention that, the friend or concubine of the husband would not be covered within the term 'relative' used under Section 498A of IPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court referring to its earlier decisions categorically held that a girl friend and/or concubine of the husband cannot be termed as the 'relative' of the husband, to invoke Section 498A of IPC against them. Since the position of law is very well settled, I do not find any reason to reject the claim of the petitioners for quashing the criminal proceedings. The continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, who are not the relatives of accused No.1 would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed.

¶47

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

No.222/2021 of Basavanagudi Women Police

¶50

1 [2009] 7 S.C.R. 902

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:1318 CRL.P No. 383 of 2022

¶53

Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 of IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in so far as the petitioners are

¶54

concerned, is hereby quashed.

¶55

In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2024 for vacating stay stands disposed of.

¶56

SD/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶57

BMV*

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Dr.Sheela Sundar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Sheela Sundar v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri D M Manjunath Vs Smt K S Anitha @ K S Lakshmi

Dr Prakash G C IAS Vs Sri Puttegowda

Syed Jamsid @ Khaseem Vs State of Karnataka

M R Ramachandraiah Vs State of Karnataka by

Daimler Financial Services India Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Pruthvi Sanikam Vs State of Karnataka