Dismissed¶70

Shashikala T v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2025CRL.P/5696/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C quashing; Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 IPC; cruelty and abetment of suicide; mother-in-law as accused No.2; husband accused No.1; charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2; accused Nos.3, 4, 6 dropped by investigating officer; dowry demand alleged but not charge-sheeted; deceased's diary; prima facie material; full-fledged trial; C.C.No.482/2017; Cr.No.10/2017 Vijayanagar P.S. Mysuru; IV JMFC Mysuru; Mahendra Awase Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda Vs. State of Gujarat; 2024 INSC 960; Karnataka High Court; Justice J.M. Khazi; NC 2025:KHC:19001; petition rejected/dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Prima facie there is sufficient material, including the statements of witnesses and the diary maintained by the deceased, to proceed against the petitioner along with accused No.1. ¶63

Shashikala T Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner (arraigned as accused No.2) in C.C.No.482/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 IPC ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

Prima facie there is sufficient material, including the statements of witnesses and the diary maintained by the deceased, to proceed against the petitioner along with accused No.1.

¶63

Ratio / Principle

It is for the prosecution to prove the allegations against the petitioner and accused No.1 at a full-fledged trial; it is not a case for questioning the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

¶64

Key takeaways

The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner (Mahendra Awase and Jayedeepsinh) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.ratio¶68
The petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is rejected.ratio¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (NC: 2025:KHC:19001), single judge (J.M. Khazi, J.), order dated 05.06.2025 in CRL.P No. 5696 of 2017 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Petitioner, mother-in-law of the deceased and arraigned as accused No.2, sought quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.482/2017 (arising out of Cr.No.10/2017 of Vijayanagar P.S., Mysuru) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 IPC pending before the IV JMFC Court, Mysuru. The deceased allegedly hanged herself on 01.01.2017 following harassment and died in hospital on 14.01.2017; charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 (husband) and 2 (mother-in-law), the investigating officer having dropped accused Nos.3, 4 and 6. Though the complaint alleged dowry demand, charge sheet was filed only under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. Relying on witness statements and the deceased's diary, the Court held there was prima facie sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner with accused No.1, to be proved at a full-fledged trial; the decisions in Mahendra Awase (Crl.A. No. 221/2025) and Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda (2024 INSC 960) were held inapplicable to the facts. Petition rejected; Registry directed to send a copy of the order to the trial court by e-mail.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19001 CRL.P No. 5696 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5696 OF 2017

¶9

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

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SHASHIKALA T W/O B.S.NAGARAJU AGE:53 YEARS, R/AT 3399, 6^TH MAIN, TILAK NAGAR MYSURU-570 011

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI.A.LOURDU MARIYAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶17

BY VIJAYANAGAR P.S (MYSURU) BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560 001

¶18

MARISWAMY NAYAK S/O DODDANAYAK AGED 59 YEARS SBI BANK MANAGE, D.NO.3295-21/A

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:19001 CRL.P No. 5696 of 2017

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

2^ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA MYSURU-570 011

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.B.S.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY 1^st RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO WRITTEN COMPLAINT OF 2^nd RESPONDENT IN C.C.NO.482/2017 (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.10/2017) OF VIJAYANAGAR P.S., (MYSURU) FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 498A,306 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV JMFC COURT AT MYSURU.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioner who is a arraigned as accused No.2 has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings pending against her in C.C.No.482/2017 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19001 CRL.P No. 5696 of 2017

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

In support of the petition, the petitioner has

¶31

contended that the plain reading of averments of the complaint would create an impression that the petitioner has committed the offences. However, on a careful reading and surveying the incriminating material, the innocence of the petitioner could be noticed. The alleged incident took place in the house of the deceased. She had deserted the company of her husband and staying at her parents house over a period of one year. As such question of harassing the deceased, either mentally or physically does not arise. The complaint is well designed by the first informant to implicate the petitioner falsely. The complaint indicate that the first informant had set up a separate residence for the deceased and her husband. Despite the same, she had deserted her husband and opted to stay with her parents. Such being the case mere advising the couple to live happily by mending

¶32

their behaviour does not amount to harassment or abetment. The first informant who is working as a Manager in a bank, instead of advising the deceased was

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19001 CRL.P No. 5696 of 2017

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

unnecessarily supporting her. The deceased has not left any

¶36

death note. The statement of witnesses indicate that on

¶37

trivial matters there used to be quarrel between the couple which cannot be termed as abetment to commit suicide. The

¶38

investigating officer has dropped accused Nos.3, 4 and 6. The position of petitioner is also standing on the same footing.

¶39

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon by the following decisions:

¶40

(i) Mahendra Awase Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh ( Mahendra Awase )¹

¶41

(ii) Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat ( Jayedeepsinh )²

¶42

Opposing the petition, learned HCGP submitted

¶43

that after conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 and 2, who are the husband and

¶44

mother-in-law of deceased. The deceased was in the habit of

¶45

1 Crl.A.No.221/2025 (SLP(Crl.)No.11868/2023

¶46

2 2024 INSC 960

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19001 CRL.P No. 5696 of 2017

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

writing diary, wherein she has clearly noted the harassment

¶50

meted out by the petitioner. Ultimately, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home. After the delivery and birth of the daughter also, she was not taken back. As a cumulative

¶51

effect of the harassment, the deceased choose to end her life. In respect of the harassment there were previous complaints to the police and the matter was conciliated. There is prime facie material to proceed against the petitioner along with accused No.1. It is not the case for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and pray to reject the same.

¶52

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶53

The marriage of accused No.1 and deceased was held on 20.02.2011. Thereafter, she lived in the matrimonial

¶54

home. She stayed there till she went to delivery to her parental home. In between for short period accused No.1 and deceased were residing in rented premises. The allegations made in the charge sheet is to the effect that

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19001 CRL.P No. 5696 of 2017

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

while she stayed in the matrimonial home, accused Nos.1

¶58

and 2 used to quarrel with her for petty matters, such as preparing food, cleaning the house, visiting the houses of relatives and blow the same into out of proportion. They used to create such a situation wherein she thought it better to end her life than to live with them. After delivery, she went back to the matrimonial home. Thereafter accused No.1 and deceased stayed in rental houses. Ultimately, she started living in the house of her parents. On the previous day of the incident, accused No.1 went to the parental home of deceased and with regard to taking her back to the matrimonial home accused No.1 picked up quarrel with the deceased and abused her saying that it is better for her to end her life. Unable to bear the harassment meted out by accused Nos.1 and 2, on 01.01.2017, deceased hanged herself. Immediately she was shifted to the hospital and was under treatment and she died on 14.01.2017, and thereby accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offices punishable under section 498-A and 306 IPC.

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19001 CRL.P No. 5696 of 2017

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

During the course of complaint, allegations are

¶62

made that there were demand for dowry. However, after conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed only for the offence punishable under section 498–A and 306 IPC. In addition to the statement of witnesses, there is also the diary maintained by the deceased, which clearly implicate that petitioner was in the habit of quarrelling with the deceased and also making her life miserable in the matrimonial home. Though accused No.1 and deceased stayed in rented houses for sometime, ultimately, she was forced to go back to her parental home. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the cumulative effect of all these

¶63

and failure of her husband to take her back to the matrimonial home forced her to commit suicide. Prima facie there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner along with accused No1. It is for the prosecution to prove

¶64

the allegations against them at a full fledged trial and it is not a case for questioning the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. So far as the decisions relied upon by the

¶65

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:19001 CRL.P No. 5696 of 2017

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

learned counsel for petitioner are concerned, they are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and accordingly the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

(i) Petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected.

¶71

(ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e-mail.

¶72

Sd/(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE

¶73

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52