Smt.P. Vijayalakshmi Vs State by Kodigehalli Police Station

SMT. P. VIJAYALAKSHMI, WIFE OF H.V.NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8, 6^TH CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT, KODIGEHALLI, SAHAKARANAGAR POST OFFICE, BANGALORE – 560 092.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. CHETAN KUMAR H., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, Digitally signed 3H5M+C5C, BB NAGAR, by SHARADAVANI KOTI HOSAHALLI, B BENGALURU, Location: High Court of KARNATAKA – 560 092. Karnataka STATION HOUSE OFFICER BY SPP, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

MRS. ROJA ALSO KNOWN AS VAISHNAVI, WIFE OF H N VISHRUTH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PARASHURAMPURA VILLAGE,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:26275 CRL.P No. 4044 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 534.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI.N.MAHALINGA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶22

¶23

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.11193/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-M) INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF COMPLAINT (ANNEXURE-H), FIR NO.0073/2020 (ANNEXURE-J) AND CHARGE SHEET (ANNEXURE-L) REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 504, 506, 498A, 354 R/W 149 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONER; AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER(S) AS MAY BE DEEMED FIT AND NECESSARY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

THIS CRL.P., COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26275 CRL.P No. 4044 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

" a) Quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.11193/2021 pending on the file of VII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru (Annexure-M) initiated on the basis of complaint (Annexure-H), FIR No.0073/2020 (Annexure-J) and charge sheet (Annexure-l) registered for offences p/u/s 323, 504, 506, 498a, 354 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered by the Respondent No.1, in so far as it pertains to the petitioner;

¶31

Pass such other order(s) as may be deemed fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. "

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶33

learned HCGP for respondent No.1, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

¶34

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is the mother of Vishruth H.N., who is the husband of respondent No.2 - Mrs. Roja @ Vaishnavi, the de facto complainant, who filed the instant complaint registered as an FIR in Crime No.73/2020 dated 08.06.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26275 CRL.P No. 4044 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

323, 504, 506, 354, 498A, 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In the said proceedings, the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3 and pursuant to investigation, the Police authorities have filed the charge sheet which is presently pending in C.C.No.11193/2021 before the Trial Court.

¶38

In this context, it is relevant to state that except making vague, bald, omnibus and general allegations against the petitioner (accused No.3), specific allegations and specific instances amounting to commission of the alleged offences qua the petitioner (accused No.3) are conspicuously absent. A perusal of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet material, statement of witnesses, documents, etc., in so far as the alleged offences are concerned, the entire allegations are directed against accused Nos.1 and 2 and not against petitioner (accused No.3).

¶39

Under these circumstances, in the absence of

¶40

necessary ingredients constituting the commission of the

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26275 CRL.P No. 4044 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

aforesaid offences, the petitioner cannot be said to be guilty of committing the said offences, as alleged by the respondent No.2.

¶44

Under these circumstances, the continuation of

¶45

the impugned proceedings against the petitioner (accused No.3) would amount to abuse of the process of law, warranting interference in the present petition.

¶46

In the result petition, I pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed ;

¶49

ii. The impugned proceedings pending in C.C.No.11193/2021 (arising out of Crime No.73/2020 dated 08.06.2020), initiated by Kodigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, pending on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354,

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:26275 CRL.P No. 4044 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

498A, 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, qua the petitioner herein/accused No.3, are hereby quashed;

¶54

iii. I.A.No.1/2025 filed by the petitioner (accused No.3) seeking permission to travel abroad is allowed and the petitioner (accused No.3) - Smt. P. Vijayalakshmi is permitted to travel abroad as sought for by her in I.A.No.1/2025.

¶55

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶56

BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

Smt.P. Vijayalakshmi v. State by Kodigehalli Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.P. Vijayalakshmi v. State by Kodigehalli Police Station

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

Smt. Bharathamma R (A1) Vs the State of Karnataka

Leelavathi J Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Venugopal B v, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Hameed, Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Shaikh Yunus Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Pavan Kumar M Vs State by Halasuru Police Station.