Dismissed¶9

Sri Prakash Indoria v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2025CRL.P/6767/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, CRL.P No. 6767 of 2022, decided 20 June 2025 by J.M.Khazi, J. Keywords: Section 482 Cr.P.C quashing petition; Sections 498A and 306 r/w 34 IPC; abetment of suicide; dowry harassment allegations; death note by deceased; voice message; prima facie case in charge sheet; disputed facts not decidable at threshold; full-fledged trial; certificate under Section 65B; Mico Layout Police Station Cr.No.25/2020; S.C.No.1194/2021 LXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge Bangalore; NC: 2025:KHC:21819.

What did the court decide?

The charge-sheet material clearly makes out a prima facie case against the petitioners; the allegations are required to be established in a full-fledged trial, and disputed facts cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ¶100

Sri Prakash Indoria Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:21819 CRL.P No. 6767 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6767 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI PRAKASH INDORIA

¶11

S/O LATE SATYANARAYANA INDORIA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶12

R/A NO.33/5, 8TH CROSS SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI BANGALORE-560076

¶13

SMT KARUNA INDORIA W/O LATE SATYANARAYANA INDORIA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A NO.33/5, 8TH CROSS SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI

¶14

Digitally signed by REKHA R

¶15

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

BANGALORE-560076

¶17

(BY SRI. C V SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶21

BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION

¶22

BANGALORE

¶23

REPRESENTED BY LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶24

BANGALORE-560001

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:21819 CRL.P No. 6767 of 2022

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

SRI VIKASH SUROLIA S/O LATE LAXMI KANT SUROLIA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/A NO.11, N C SAHA ROAD BHADRAKALI, HOOGHLY WEST BENGAL-712232

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.KAPIL DIXIT.K.S, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶31

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.1194/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-72) ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.25/2020 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,306 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶32

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

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed this petition under the Section 482 of the

¶35

Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against them in SC.No.1194/2021 on the file of LXXI Addl. Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of Cr.No.25/2020

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:21819 CRL.P No. 6767 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

of Mico Layout PS for the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 306 r/w Section 34 IPC.

¶40

Petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law of deceased. It is contended by the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is a graduate and CA Finalist working for a Multinational Company at Bengaluru as a Finance Accountant. His marriage with deceased Megha took place on 25.01.2019. After the marriage, it was found that deceased was not a graduate and she was not pursing company secretary, course as told to the petitioners. when confronted, she created a scene by throwing utensils, etc, and even smashed her phone. The marriage was not consumated. Petitioner did not get along with her mother-in-law. Petitioner No.2 expected everything to be done as per her desire and dominated the affairs of the house. She was of suspicious character and used to suspect petitioner No.1 and questioned his whereabouts. She used to over hear his conversation with his friends, colleagues over the phone. She worked in a

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21819 CRL.P No. 6767 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

primary school in BTM layout. Later, she joined Flipkart in the month of October 2019. In January 2020, she also worked in Tanishq Call Centre, Jayanagar, Bengaluru.

¶44

2.1 Petitioner No.1 met with a bike accident on 27.07.2019 and sustained fracture and spinal injury and was advised bed rest. As he could not climb the stairs, they went to stay in the house of his brother, which is having elevator. However, deceased did not get along with his mother and sister-in-law and fought with them on trivial matters. They had to come back after 40 days. Deceased was not ready to stay with petitioner No.2 and therefore, she shifted to her elder son's house. However deceased still continued her behaviour and inflicted utmost cruelty to the petitioner No.1. Even her family members

¶45

did not come forward to solve his problem. Unable to bear any more harassment, petitioner No.1 contacted advocate.

¶46

2.2 On 25.01.2020, petitioner No.1 had invited his friends for lunch. However, deceased Abruptly left the

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21819 CRL.P No. 6767 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

house saying that she is not ready to spend time with his

¶50

friends. At 12.30 p.m, Bhagyashree Agarwal a friend of petitioner No.1 came to his house. They were waiting for the other two friends. At 12.50 p.m abruptly deceased

¶51

showed up and he introduced her to his friend. However, deceased told her that she doesn't like to have any guest. Therefore, Bhagyashree Agarwal left the house without having lunch. On being informed by her, the other two friends also did not turn up. When petitioner No.1 questioned the deceased about her behaviour, she created a scene and smashed her phone. He tried to put some sense into her mind, hearing the notice the landlady came and directed them to vacate the house. In the evening, both of them went to Redmi Mobile Service Centre and gave the phone for repair and came back. However, on 27.01.2021, at 7.30 a.m, when petitioner No.1 woke up and came out of his room, he saw deceased hanging. Immediately he shifted her to the hospital, where she was declared as brought dead. Petitioner No.1 informed the

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:21819 CRL.P No. 6767 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

police and also the relatives of deceased. However, the relatives of deceased gave threat to the petitioner No.1. Respondent No.2, who is the brother of deceased has filed the complaint.

¶56

2.3. A false complaint is filed against the petitioners

¶57

without their being any substance. The investigating officer has not conducted proper investigation. There is no willful conduct or unlawful demand. As such the provisions of Section 498 IPC are not attracted. Consulting advocate does not amount to commit suicide. So far as electronic evidence said to have been collected by the Investigating Officer, certificate under Section 65B is not produced. The material placed in the charge sheet is not sufficient to proceed against the petitioners and hence the petition.

¶58

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for

¶59

petitioners has relied upon the following decisions:

¶60

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21819 CRL.P No. 6767 of 2022

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

(i) Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana ( Naresh Kumar )¹

¶63

(ii) Prakash Vs. State of Maharashtra ( Prakash )²

¶64

(iii) Mahendra Awase Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ( Mahendra Awase )³

¶65

(iv) R Shashirekha Vs. State of Karnataka ( Shashirekha )⁴

¶66

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant and Learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 - State submit that after the marriage of deceased she started living with petitioners. However within a short time petitioner No.1 started abusing, assaulting and torturing deceased both physically and mentally. He was forcing her to find a job and earn her livelihood. He was constantly staying away from her and consulting advocate to divorce

¶67

her. She was trying very hard to work her marriage. Petitioner No.1 was forcing her to leave the matrimonial

¶68

1 LAWS(SC)-2024-2-67

¶69

2 LAWS(SC)-2024-12-78

¶70

3 LAWS(SC)-2025-1-69

¶71

4 LAWS(SC)-2025-3-86

¶72

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21819 CRL.P No. 6767 of 2022

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

home. Thrice they tried to patch up the matter and

¶75

console her, but the torture continued.

¶76

4.1 On 27.01.2020 at 5.36 a.m, deceased sent a

¶77

voice message to her family members, including her sister-in-law Sonia stating that she is unable to bear the torture meted out by petitioner No.1 and that he had brought a woman to their house in her absence and both of them were inside the house in suspicious manner. The explanation given by petitioner No.1 was not at all convincing and that she is ending her life. Unfortunately, they saw the message at 8.00 a.m. The sister of petitioner No.1 called and informed that Megha has committed suicide. The petitioners have induced her to commit suicide. Based on the complaint, the investigating officer

¶78

has registered the case and after conducting detailed investigation, filed charge sheet. The deceased has also left death note implicating the petitioners. There is ample material to proceed against the petitioners and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶79

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:21819 CRL.P No. 6767 of 2022

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for

¶83

respondent No.2 has relied the following decisions:

¶84

(i) Amir Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

¶85

( Amir Khan )⁵

¶86

(ii) Hanamantraya Vs. The State ( Hanamantraya )⁶

¶87

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶88

Thus, deceased who was the wife of petitioner

¶89

No.1 and daughter-in-law of petitioner No.2 committed suicide within one year of her marriage. In the complaint specific allegations are made against petitioner No.1 that she was abused, assaulted and tortured by him. She was forced to find out a job. Off late petitioner No.1 was contemplating to get a divorce from her. Even though thrice the family members of deceased mediated and attempted to find out a solution for their problem, things did not improve. Deceased was suspecting that petitioner No.1 was having an affair with another woman and in this

¶90

5 M.Cr.C.No.2625/2024 Dt: 07.08.2024

¶91

6 Crl.P.No.200255/2023 Dt: 09.10.2023

¶92

10 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:21819 CRL.P No. 6767 of 2022

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

background on 25.01.2020, while she was not in the house, petitioner No.1 called his colleague to his house and when suddenly deceased returned home, he tried to send her away under the pretext of searching for the scooter key, but she insisted and entered the house and found the said lady. As a cumulative effect of all these, deceased choose to end her life after sending voice messages to her sister-in-law and others.

¶96

Even though in the complaint, no specific allegations are made against petitioner No.2, deceased has left behind death note where in she has made allegations against petitioner No.2 and also her sister-inlaw. She was consistently insulted and humiliated for not getting sufficient dowry from her family, gifts for petitioner No.2 and her daughters. In the petition, it is pleaded that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and deceased was not consumed. It appears petitioner No.1 was seriously contemplating to take divorce from the deceased. Coupled with the presence of a woman friend of petitioner No.1 in

¶97

11 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC:21819 CRL.P No. 6767 of 2022

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

the house in the absence of deceased, also triggered the situation and forced the deceased to end her life. The charge sheet material clearly makes out a prima facie case. The allegations made in the charge sheet are required to be established in a full-fledged trial. In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, disputed facts cannot be decided.

¶101

So far as decisions relied upon by the learned

¶102

counsel for petitioners are concerned, they are to be appreciated in the light of evidence that would come on record at the trial. At this stage, petitioners cannot take advantage of the same. Thus, from the above discussion, this Court is of considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs sought and accordingly the following:

¶103

ORDER

¶104

(i) Petition filed by the petitioners/accused

¶105

Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is

¶106

hereby rejected.

¶107