Allowed¶41

Nagarathnamma v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2025CRL.P/5154/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of S.498A/504/323/506/114/34 IPC and S.3 & 4 D.P. Act proceedings against husband's relatives (mother, brothers, sisters) for absence of specific allegations; bald, vague and omnibus allegations; reliance on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022 SCC OnLine SC 162) and Digambar v. State of Maharastra (2024 INSC 1019); abuse of process; C.C.No.497/2024 JMFC-II Shivamogga; Crime No.86/2023; S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS; High Court of Karnataka; S.R. Krishna Kumar J.; decided 17 February 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; entire proceedings in C.C.No.497/2024 arising out of Crime No.86/2023 pending before JMFC-II Court, Shivamogga, quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned, with the trial court directed to proceed against accused No.1 and dispose of the proceedings in accordance with law. ¶41

Nagarathnamma Vs State of Karnataka by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C.No.497/2024 pending before JMFC-II Court, Shivamogga, against the petitioners (accused Nos.2 to 7, being the mother, brothers and sisters of accused No.1) for offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 323, 506, 114, 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act are liable to be quashed.

¶30

Court's answer

The offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 323, 506, 114 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, conspicuously absent; the impugned complaint contains only bald, vague and omnibus allegations against the husband (accused No.1) with no specific allegations or material particulars against the petitioners, which tantamounts to abuse of process of law warranting interference, contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022 SCC OnLine SC 162) and Digambar v. State of Maharastra (2024 INSC 1019).

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.497/2024 arising out of Crime No.86/2023 registered by the 1st respondent-Police, pending before JMFC-II Court, Shivamogga, are quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶43

Key takeaways

The trial court shall proceed in the matter as against accused No.1 and dispose of the proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. — Quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.497/2024 (JMFC-II Court, Shivamogga) arising out of Crime No.86/2023 (Women Police Station, Shivamogga) for offences under Sections 498-A, 504, 323, 506, 114 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act — Complainant (2nd respondent, wife) had alleged the offences principally against her husband (accused No.1); petitioners are his mother, brothers and sisters (accused Nos.2 to 7) — Perusal of complaint, FIR, charge sheet and witness statements showed the offences, insofar as the petitioners were concerned, to be conspicuously absent — Complaint contained only bald, vague and omnibus allegations against the husband, with no specific allegations or material particulars against the petitioners — Continuation of proceedings contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022 SCC OnLine SC 162) and Digambar v. State of Maharastra (2024 INSC 1019) — Amounted to abuse of process of law warranting interference — Petition allowed; proceedings quashed insofar as petitioners concerned; trial court to proceed against accused No.1 in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:7255 CRL.P No. 5154 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5154 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NAGARATHNAMMA W/O. NIJALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/AT IYYANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.

¶8

BASAVARAJU. N S/O. NIJALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: FARMER, R/AT IYYANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.

¶9

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

CHANDRAKALA. B W/O. BASAVARAJAPPA. B, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/AT BHANUVALLI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 516.

¶11

BASAVARAJAPPA. B S/O. BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC FARMER, R/AT BHANUVALLI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 516.

¶12

GANGAMMA @ MAMATHA W/O. MALLIKARJUNA. N. R., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE,

¶13

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:7255 CRL.P No. 5154 of 2024

¶15

R/AT BHEEMA SAMUDRA ROAD, SIDDAPURA, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.

¶16

MALLIKARJUNA. N. R. S/O. RAJANNA. N. M., AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC FARMER, R/AT BHEEMA SAMUDRA ROAD, SIDDAPURA, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. S G RAJENDRA REDDY.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

SMT. SHARAVATHI W/O. MALLIKARJUNA. N, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/AT AINAHALLI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1 SRI. R. SATISH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.497/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.-II COURT, SHIVAMOGGA REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 504, 323, 506, 114, 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:7255 CRL.P No. 5154 of 2024

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

In this petition, petitioners seek for the following reliefs:-

¶30

“ Wherefore the petitioners most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court kindly allow this Criminal Petition and quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.497/2024 pending on the file of JMFC-II Court, Shivamogga, registered for the offences punishable U/Sec. 498(A), 504, 323, 506, 114, 34 of IPC and U/Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act, in the interest of justice.”

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl.SPP for 1^st respondent as well as learned counsel for 2^nd respondent and perused the material on record.

¶32

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 2^nd respondent – complainant is the wife of one Mallikarjun – accused No.1, while petitioner No.1-accused No.2 is the mother and petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 – accused Nos.3 to 7 are the brothers and sisters of accused No.1. On 30.07.2023, the 2^nd respondent filed the instant complaint registered in Crime No.86/2023, pursuant to which, charge sheet was filed against the petitioners and accused No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A,

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:7255 CRL.P No. 5154 of 2024

¶35

504, 323, 506, 114 r/w 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act.

¶36

A perusal of the impugned complaint, FIR, Charge sheet, statement of witnesses and documents etc., are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the aforesaid offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 323, 506, 114 r/w 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act insofar as the petitioners are concerned are conspicuously absent and continuation of the impugned proceedings is contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex court in the cases of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & others vs. State of Bihar - 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162 and Digambar and Anr. Vs. State of Maharastra – 2024 INSC 1019. In fact, in the complaint except making mere bald, vague and omnibus allegations only against her husband, no specific allegations or material particulars are forthcoming in the impugned complaint against the petitioners, which tantamounts to abuse of process of law warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:7255 CRL.P No. 5154 of 2024

¶39

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶42

(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.497/2024 arising

¶43

out of Crime No.86/2023 registered by the 1^st respondent – Police pending on the file of JMFC-II Court, Shivamogga, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed.

¶44

(iii) It is made clear that the trial court shall proceed in the matter as against accused No.1 and dispose of the proceedings in accordance with law.

¶45

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶46

Srl.

¶47

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31

Nagarathnamma v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagarathnamma v. State of Karnataka 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

Ms. Ahalekya v Vs State of Karnataka

Rakesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka by

Praveen Singh Vs State of Karnataka

Jennifer Stanley S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sudheer C S Vs State of Karnataka