Sri Sravana Kumar P Vs State by Basavanagudi Women Police — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Sravana Kumar P Vs State by Basavanagudi Women Police — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Crl.P.No.5290/2023 (accused No.1) dismissed; Crl.P.No.4787/2023 allowed; the criminal proceeding arising out of Crime No.129/2023 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station against accused Nos.2 to 9 quashed; I.A.No.2/2023 in Crl.P.No.4787/2023 disposed of.

¶ORDER, clause (iii)

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.129/2023 and the entire proceedings pending against accused No.1 (the husband) on the file of the XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

Court's answer

So far as accused No.1 (the husband) is concerned, there are specific and distinct allegations against him; therefore the investigation/proceedings insofar as he is concerned cannot be quashed (Crl.P.No.5290/2023 dismissed).

Ratio / Principle

The criminal proceedings initiated against accused Nos.2 to 9 are nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and cannot be allowed to stand; the proceedings against them in Crime No.129/2023 are quashed (Crl.P.No.4787/2023 allowed).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR in a matrimonial dispute (Crime No.129/2023, Basavanagudi Women Police Station; Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961): The High Court of Karnataka (Mohammad Nawaz, J.) held that the complaint contained only omnibus and vague allegations against the husband's relatives (accused Nos.2 to 9 - his parents, sisters and brothers); it did not specify which relative committed the alleged acts, and there were absolutely no allegations against the complainant's parents-in-law. Following the principle in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, that relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations absent specific instances of involvement, the Court held that the proceedings against accused Nos.2 to 9 were an abuse of the process of the Court: Crl.P.No.4787/2023 was allowed and the proceedings against them were quashed. However, since specific and distinct allegations were made against accused No.1 (the husband), the investigation against him could not be quashed and Crl.P.No.5290/2023 was dismissed. I.A.No.2/2023 in Crl.P.No.4787/2023 was disposed of. Context noted: complaint lodged 02.06.2023, after the husband's divorce petition (03.02.2022) and the complainant's PWDV Act petition (05.02.2022), in which proceedings against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law were dropped.

NC: 2025:KHC:15237 CRL.P No. 5290 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 4787 of 2023

1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5290 OF 2023

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

C/W

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4787 OF 2023

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

IN CRL.P No. 5290/2023

BETWEEN:

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

SRI. SRAVANA KUMAR P, S/O SRI. BALAKRISHNA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O NO.22, 1ST MAIN, WILSON GARDEN HOUSING SOCIETY, RBI LAYOUT, J.P. NAGARA 7TH PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078, (AS PER ADHAAR PETITIONER'S NAME IS PULLEPARTHI SRAVANAKUMAR)

(BY SRI. AKSHAY.S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, ADVOCATE)

…PETITIONER

AND:

STATE BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15237 CRL.P No. 5290 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 4787 of 2023

SMT. PRIYADARSHINI K, W/O. SRI. SRAVAN KUMAR P, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT. SHREE SAPTHAGIRI ENCLAVE APARTMENT, IMMIDIHALLI MAIN ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE - 560 066.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY MS. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SMT. AKSHATA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHEKHAR BADIGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH FIR FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.1) REGISTERED IN CR.NO.129/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 37TH A.C.M.M, BENGALURU REGISTERED BY THE BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE UNDER SEC.498(A),504,506 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT.

IN CRL.P NO. 4787/2023

BETWEEN:

SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O SRI. BALAKRISHNA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, (AS PER ADHAR PETR. NO.1 NAME IS PULLE PARTHI RAJESHWARAMMA)

SRI. BALAKRISHNA NAIDU, S/O KRISHNAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, (AS PER ADHAR PETR. NO.2 NAME IS PULLE PARTHI BALAKRISHNA NAIDU)

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15237 CRL.P No. 5290 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 4787 of 2023

THE PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT RAJESHWARI GENERAL STORES, BESIDES BISMILLA HOTEL, P SOMALA, MANDALAM CHITTOOR ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 257.

SMT. PUSHPA

W/O SRI. MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, (AS PER ADHAR PETR. NO.3 NAME IS ALLURI PUSHPA)

SRI. MOHAN KUMAR NAIDU, S/O SRI. BALAKRISHNA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, (AS PER ADHAR PETR. NO.4 NAME IS PULLE PARTHI MOHAN KUMAR)

SMT. ANITHA W/O LEELA KRISHNA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS (AS PER ADHAR PETR. NO.5 NAME IS ALLURI ANITHA)

SRI. LEELA KRISHNA NAIDU, S/O BALAKRISHNA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, (AS PER ADHAR PETR. NO.6 NAME IS PULLE PARTHI LEELA KRISHNA)

THE PETITIONER NO.3 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT 363, 1ST MAIN ROAD, MRIYAPPPANA PALYA, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 560 024.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15237 CRL.P No. 5290 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 4787 of 2023

SMT. DEEPAK KALYANI NAIDU W/O JANARDHAN NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, (AS PER ADHAR PETR. NO.7 NAME IS DEEPA KALYANI)

SRI. JANARDHAN NAIDU, S/O NAGA RATHNAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, (AS PER ADHAR PETR. NO.8 NAME IS MALLINI JANARDHAN) THE PETITIONER NO.7 AND 8 ARE RESIDING AT RAJESHWARI GENERAL STORES BESIDES BISMILLA HOTEL, P SOMALA, MANDALAM CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 257.

...PETITIONERS

(BY MS. AKSHAY S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.P. YOHANNA, ADVOCATE) AND:

STATE BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

SMT. PRIYADARSHINI K, W/O SRI. SRAVAN KUMAR P, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT SHREE SAPTHAGIRI ENCLAVE APARTMENT, IMMIDIHALLI MAIN ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE - 560 066.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. AKSHATA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHEKAR BADIGER, ADVOCATE FOR R2; MS. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15237 CRL.P No. 5290 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 4787 of 2023

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH FIR FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 8 (ACCUSED NO.2 TO 9) REGISTERED IN CR.NO.129/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 37TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE, REGISTERED BY THE BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE, U/S 498(A), 504 AND 506 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

ORAL ORDER

Both these petitions arise out of Crime No.129/2023 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP' Act).

Petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR and the entire proceedings pending against them on the file of the Hon'ble XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15237 CRL.P No. 5290 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 4787 of 2023

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/defacto complainant.

Respondent No.2 herein lodged a complaint with the police alleging domestic violence, cruelty, mental torture etc, based on which the aforementioned case was registered against her husband and his relatives.

Accused No.1 is the husband, accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of accused No.1, accused Nos.4, 6 and 8 are his sisters and accused Nos.5, 7 and 9 are brothers of accused No.1.

Crl.P.No.5290/2023 is preferred by accused No.1 and Crl.P.No.4787/2023 is preferred by accused Nos.2 to 9 respectively.

It is alleged in the complaint that the marriage of 2^nd respondent with Accused No.1 was conducted by spending more than Rs.30 lakhs and expensive clothes,

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15237 CRL.P No. 5290 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 4787 of 2023

gold articles etc were given to Accused No.1, a software engineer, but he was never prompt and loyal towards the complainant.

A careful perusal of the complaint averments reveal that, domestic violence, cruelty, mental torture and use of abusive language are mainly attributed against accused No.1. The allegations against other accused are that, complaint's sister-in-law would visit home and inspect what are the things missing and demand the complainant to buy cot, sofa set, dressing table etc., and used to hit and drag the complainant etc. Further allegations are that accused No.1 was having strange relationship with his sister-in-law.

As already noted, accused Nos.4, 6 and 8 are the sisters of accused No.1 and accused Nos.5,7 and 9 are his brothers. It is not specified in the complaint as to which sister of her husband forced the complainant to get cot, sofa set, dressing table etc as alleged. Omnibus and vague allegations are made. It is relevant to mention that

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15237 CRL.P No. 5290 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 4787 of 2023

there are absolutely no allegations against the

complainant's parents-in-law.

It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that accused No.1 and the complainant have stayed together only till 2021, as per complaint and rest of the time, they have lived separately. The sisters and brothers of accused No.1 are married and living separately. As per complaint allegations, the complainant was driven out of her matrimonial home in the month of September 2021, after accused No.1 quarelled with her.

The learned counsel would further contend that only after a petition for divorce was filed by accused No.1 on 03.02.2022, the complainant filed a petition under the provisions under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, ('PWDV Act', for short) on 05.02.2022 and later, filed a false complaint against the petitioners alleging domestic violence, cruelty etc on 02.06.2023. He further contended that the petition alleging domestic violence was filed against the husband, mother-in-law and

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15237 CRL.P No. 5290 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 4787 of 2023

sister-in-law and the concerned Court has dropped the said proceedings in respect of mother-in-law and sister-inlaw.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, would vehemently contend that the complainant was unaware of the petition filed seeking divorce by accused No.1 and in view of the domestic violence committed against her, she was constrained to file a petition seeking protection etc, under the PWDV Act on 05.02.2022. She contended that the complaint averments prima facie fulfill the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioners and therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed.

In Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that general and omnibus allegations are not sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings against relatives of the husband. The Apex Court has cautioned to be careful in

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15237 CRL.P No. 5290 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 4787 of 2023

proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. It is held, the relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.

The Apex Court in the decision noted supra has referred to various other judgments and it is relevant to extract para 13 to 17:

" 13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4)

“4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a cognizable and nonbailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.”

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15237 CRL.P No. 5290 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 4787 of 2023

14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36)

“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-AIPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.

33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15237 CRL.P No. 5290 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 4787 of 2023

majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.

36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.”

15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21)

“21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para 12)

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15237 CRL.P No. 5290 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 4787 of 2023

‘12. … There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.’

The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.”

16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6)

“6. … The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.”

17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:15237 CRL.P No. 5290 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 4787 of 2023

and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."

Having perused the entire complaint averments,

this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings initiated against accused Nos.2 to 9 is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court and cannot be allowed to stand. However, so far as accused No.1 is concerned there are specific and distinct allegation and therefore, the investigation insofar as accused No.1 is concerned can not be quashed.

For the foregoing reasons, following:

ORDER

i. Crl.P.No.5290/2023 is dismissed

ii. Crl.P.No.4787/2023 is allowed .

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:15237 CRL.P No. 5290 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 4787 of 2023

iii. The criminal proceeding arising out of Crime

No.129/2023 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station against accused Nos.2 to 9 is hereby quashed.

iv. I.A.No.2/2023 in Crl.P.No.4787/2023 is

disposed of .

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 CT: BHK