Allowed¶78

Mr. Brijesh Gajaria v. the State of Karnataka

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – quashing of criminal proceedings

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2025CRL.P/4952/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRL.P No. 4952 of 2024; decided 13-08-2025 by J.M.Khazi J.; Section 482 Cr.P.C quashing; 498A IPC; dowry prohibition; cruelty and criminal intimidation charges; complaint filed after 17 years of marriage amid cross divorce petitions M.C.No.6782/2022 and M.C.No.7369/2022; abuse of process of court; C.C.No.1950/2022, VI ACMM Bengaluru; proceedings against husband and parents-in-law quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1950/2022 on the file of VI ACMM, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act quashed; Registry directed to send a copy of the order to the trial court through e-mail. ¶78

Mr. Brijesh Gajaria Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶78

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1950/2022 against the petitioners (husband and parents-in-law) for offences under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as an abuse of the process of the Court. +1 more

¶67

Court's answer

Continuation of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1950/2022 would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶75

Ratio / Principle

Since petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are residing at Mumbai, the main dispute concerns the alleged illicit relationship of respondent No.2 with Arun Robert and her grievance against petitioner No.1 regarding ownership of the apartments, the complaint filed after 17 years of marriage appears to have been lodged to pressurise the petitioners to yield to her demand.

¶75

Key takeaways

The parties are at liberty to agitate their disputes in the matrimonial proceedings.obiter¶75

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - quashing of criminal proceedings - offences under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - complaint by wife against husband and parents-in-law filed after 17 years of marriage, while cross divorce petitions (M.C.No.6782/2022 and M.C.No.7369/2022) were pending and the parties were in dispute over ownership of two apartments in the same complex - petitioners Nos.2 and 3 (parents-in-law) residing at Mumbai - Held, the complaint appears to have been filed to pressurise the petitioners to yield to the complainant's demand; continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court; proceedings in C.C.No.1950/2022 quashed; parties free to agitate their disputes in the matrimonial cases.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:32015 CRL.P No. 4952 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4952 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. BRIJESH GAJARIA S/O LATESH GAJARAI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.359A, DEWANG APARTMENT 21^ST ROAD BANDRA WEST MUBAI WEST MAHARASHTRA - 400 050.

¶10

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

MRS MALTI GARARIA W/O LATESH GAJARIA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO.359A DEWANG APARTMENT, 21^ST ROAD, BANDRA WEST MUMBAI CITY MAHARASHTRA - 400 050.

¶12

MR LATESH GAJARIA S/O LATE LATESH GAJARIIA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT No.359A

¶13

DEWANG APARTMENT, 21^ST ROAD, BANDRA WEST MUMBAI CITY MAHARASHTRA - 400 050.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SMT. BHUSHANI KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:32015 CRL.P No. 4952 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EAST ZONE WOMEN'S POLICE STATION BANGALORE REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶21

MRS. NANCY BHATIA D/O AMRIT LAL BHATIA W/O BRIJEST GAJARIA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.W3-1302 BREN IMPERIA, 15^TH MAIN ROAD, OFF HARLUR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 102.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1-STATE SRI GEORGE JOSEPH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.PC. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.19506/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE VI A.C.M.M COURT AT BENGALURU AND DISCHARGE HIM FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506, 34, 498A, 504, 323 OF IPC READ WITH SECTION 4 OF D.P ACT AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3

¶29

have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32015 CRL.P No. 4952 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.1950/2022 on the file of VI ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶33

In support of the petition, petitioners have contended that the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 Nancy Bhatia was performed on 26.06.2005 at Mumbai. It was registered with the Registrar of Marriages, Bhandra, Mumbai on 12.09.2005.

¶34

The marriage was celebrated in a simple manner and around 500 invitees attended the marriage. Petitioner and his family spent Rs.5 lakhs towards marriage expenses. After the marriage, respondent No.2 joined the matrimonial home at Mumbai.

¶35

2.1 Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1. There was no demand for dowry in any form. In October 2020, petitioner No.1 came across a file

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32015 CRL.P No. 4952 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

in which it is stated that respondent No.2 has undergone abortion in 2018. When confronted, she revealed that she had an affair and it ended and during the said period, she had undergone abortion. She apologized to petitioner No.1.

¶39

2.2 Respondent No.2 is not keeping any physical relationship with petitioner No.1 since 2016. During December 2020, respondent No.2 conveyed that she could not continue with their marriage and she has no feelings towards petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 was shattered and thought of committing suicide. Respondent No.2 told him not to die in the matrimonial home at Bengaluru and instead he can die in his parents house. Petitioner No.1 did not want to end the marriage, as their child is aged only 7 years. However, after August 2020, respondent No.2 assaulted petitioner No.1 multiple times.

¶40

2.3 The apartment booked by petitioner No.1 was ready for registration during 2020. It is petitioner No.1 who has paid the entire amount of Rs.35 lakhs. He is

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32015 CRL.P No. 4952 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

paying the EMI. Despite the same, he made respondent No.2 as a joint owner by including her name in the sale deed, with a fond hope that respondent No.2 would change her attitude and lead a happy married life. However, she did not change her attitude. They continued to live like strangers.

¶44

2.4 On 15.09.2022, respondent No.2 expressed her desire to move out of the house permanently. However, the child was not ready to go with her. On 30.09.2022, respondent No.2 went out with her friends and returned only at 2.30 a.m. and said that she is having an affair with a person living in the same apartment.

¶45

2.5 On 05.10.2022, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 came to Bengaluru and advised respondent No.2 to desist from having affair. But, respondent No.2 refused to heed to the advise. She offered to get her name removed from the

¶46

sale deed and left with the child and her mother and moved to her apartment. Being depressed, petitioner No.1 along with other petitioners went to Mumbai. On

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:32015 CRL.P No. 4952 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

15.10.2022, respondent No.2 called petitioner No.1 and informed him that she is moving back to the house of petitioner No.1 as it also belongs to her and now she is staying in the house of petitioner No.1.

¶50

2.6 In the meanwhile, on 08.11.2022, respondent No.2 has filed for divorce in M.C.No.6782/2022 making false allegations. Petitioner No.1 also filed M.C.No.7369/2022. In this background, on 22.11.2022, respondent No.2 has filed a false complaint. In this regard NCR.No.1108/2022 was issued by the concerned police. Petitioner No.1 has also given his statement on 17.12.2022. After giving statement, petitioner No.1 thought that the said case would be closed. However, to his shock and dismay, respondent No.2 has filed complaint dated 20.12.2022, making further allegations of demand

¶51

for dowry. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 never resided with respondent No.2. False allegations are also made against

¶52

them and also accused No.4 who is the sister of petitioner No.1 and resident of US.

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:32015 CRL.P No. 4952 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

2.7 The allegations made in the charge sheet are

¶56

false, frivolous and untenable. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and pendency of petitions for divorce, continuation of the criminal proceedings would

¶57

amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the petition.

¶58

On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 State would submit that the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was performed on 26.06.2005. They were staying at Bengaluru. They are having a son. After sometime petitioner No.1 started suspecting respondent No.2. He used to follow her.

¶59

They were referring her as a prostitute. Her mobile was hacked. They also tried to forcibly remove her from matrimonial home and berate her saying that valuable gifts were not given at her marriage. They were also preventing her for going to work and to speak to anyone. They used to

¶60

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:32015 CRL.P No. 4952 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

assault her in the presence of child. Unable to bare the harassment, respondent No.2 shifted to her other apartment in the same building. Despite the same, they used to follow her and the harassment continued. They also

¶64

tried to forcibly take away the child. After conducting detailed investigation, concerned police have filed charge sheet. It makes out a strong prima facie case. The allegations are required to be established in a full fledged trial and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶65

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶66

Thus, petitioners who are the husband and

¶67

parents-in-law of respondent No.2 are seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them, contending that respondent No.2 developed illicit relationship with one Arun Robert, a Gym instructor and when it was objected to and on that ground, petitioner No.1 sought divorce, after 17 years of marriage, respondent No.2 has chosen to file a false complaint against the petitioners. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are living in Mumbai and after coming to know about the

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:32015 CRL.P No. 4952 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

illicit relationship of respondent No.2 with the said Arun Robert, they came and took petitioner No.1 to Mumbai as he was depressed, after which this complaint is filed. In fact the criminal proceedings initiated against accused No.4 who is the sister of petitioner No.1 and daughter of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and who is in US is already quashed.

¶71

It is not in dispute that the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 took place on 26.06.2005 and they are having a son through the said marriage. From the material placed on record, it is evident that an apartment consisting of three bedrooms is purchased in the joint name of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. In the same apartment complex, they are owning another apartment consisting of two bedrooms. Making specific allegations that respondent No.2 is living in adultery with Arun Robert, petitioner No.1 is seeking divorce in M.C.No.7369/2022. Similarly, respondent No.2 has also filed M.C.No.6782/2022. There is also dispute with regard to sharing of the said apartments.

¶72

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:32015 CRL.P No. 4952 of 2024

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Even though the marriage is dated 26.06.2005,

¶75

after lapse of 17 years, respondent No.2 has chosen to file complaint against the petitioners. Since petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are residing at Mumbai and the main dispute is with regard to the alleged illicit relationship of respondent No.2 with Arun Robert and her grievance is against petitioner No.1 with regard to the ownership of the apartments, it appears this complaint is filed to pressurize them to yield to her demand. Certainly, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and as such it is liable to be quashed. Certainly, the parties can agitate their dispute in the matrimonial case and accordingly, the following:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

(i) Petition filed by the petitioners/accused

¶78

Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is allowed.

¶79