Sri.Prashanthu K.M Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.36/2024 OF WEST WOMEN P.S., DATED 27.05.2024 U/S 498A, 323, 506, 342 R/W 34 OF IPC, SEC. 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND SEC. 72 OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT PENDING BEFORE THE XXIV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

In this petition, petitioners seek the following relief:

¶39

"a) Call for relevant records;

¶40

b) Quash the FIR in Crime No.0036/2024 West Women Police Station dated 27.05.2024 under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342 R/w 34 Indian Penal Code, Under Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Under Section 72 of the Information Technology Act 2000 pending before the 24^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Bengaluru City as per Annexure-A against the petitioners.

¶41

c) issue such other relief/s this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice."

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the

¶43

learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for

¶44

respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

¶45

4 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:20909 CRL.P No. 5427 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant is the wife of petitioner No.1 / accused No.1 and petitioner No.2 / accused No.2 and petitioner No.5 / accused No.5 are none other than the brother-inlaw and sister of petitioner No.1 and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 5.

¶49

On 27.05.2024, respondent No.2 – de-facto

¶50

complainant filed a complaint, which was registered as an FIR in Crime No.36/2024 against the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 5 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. At that point in time, the petitioners approached this Court by way of present petition and interim order dated 15.07.2024 was passed as hereunder:

¶51

“ ORDER ON I.A.No.1/2024

¶52

Petitioners are before this court calling in question the registration of crime in Crime No.36/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶53

A perusal at the complaint would indicate horrendous offences by the husband-accused/petitioner

¶54

5 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:20909 CRL.P No. 5427 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

No.1 and sister-in-law-accused/petitioner No.5 while there is no allegation against any of the other petitioners.

¶58

Therefore, there shall be interim order of stay of further proceedings/investigation in Crime No.36/2024 qua accused No.2, 3 and 4.

¶59

Interim order in so far as accused No.1 and 5 stands rejected.

¶60

Learned Additional SPP is directed to accept notice for respondent No.1.

¶61

Issue emergent notice to respondent No.2.”

¶62

As could be seen from the aforesaid interim order, this Court directed stay of further proceedings / investigation in the impugned crime No.36/2024 only qua petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 / accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 and directed continuation of proceedings insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 5 / accused Nos.1 and 5 respectively.

¶63

The aforesaid interim order passed by this Court in relation to petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 is subsisting as on today. Since there was no interim order passed in favour of petitioner Nos.1 and

¶64

5, respondent No.1 - Police had proceeded to register a charge sheet dated 01.09.2024, which is pending in Crime No.36/2024 only insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 5 are considered.

¶65

6 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:20909 CRL.P No. 5427 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that except

¶69

bald, vague, omnibus, general allegations etc., against petitioner Nos.2 to 4, there is absolutely no material whatsoever to incriminate petitioner Nos.2 to 4 for the alleged offences. It is also submitted that petitioner Nos.1 and 5 who are completely innocent of the alleged offences, intend to file a discharge application before the trial Court, which may be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.

¶70

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would

¶71

submit that there is no material witnesses and same is liable to be dismissed.

¶72

A perusal of material on record comprising of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet material, statement of witnesses, documents etc., will indicate that except vague, bald, omnibus and general allegations etc., no other material is forthcoming insofar as accused Nos.2 to and 4 are concerned and consequently, relying to the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Geddam Jhansi

¶73

7 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:20909 CRL.P No. 5427 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

and another v. State of Telangana and others¹ and Digambar and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and another² , the petition deserve to be quashed.

¶77

Insofar as petitioner No.1 / accused No.1 and petitioner No.5 / accused No.5 are considered, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said accused Nos.1 and 5 will file appropriate discharge application, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of the present petition in terms of the said submission.

¶78

In the result, I pass the following:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

i) Criminal Petition is hereby partly allowed;

¶81

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.32522/2024 of West Women Police Station, pending before the 24^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru City, qua Nos.2 to 4 are hereby quashed;

¶82

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263

¶83

2 2024 INSC 1019

¶84

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20909 CRL.P No. 5427 of 2024

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of petitioner Nos.1 and 5 to file discharge application before the trial Court in C.C.No.32522/2024 and seek discharge insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 5 - accused Nos.1 and 5 are considered and the trial Court is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶87

All rival contentions in all aspects of the matter are kept open

¶88

and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶89

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶90

KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Sri.Prashanthu K.M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Prashanthu K.M 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. H S Devaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkatesh R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishnoji Rao Vs the State by Kengeri Police Station

Sri Venkatesh N C Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Murali Krishna S., Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Sayyad Uruz Hydar Vs State of Karnataka