Sri K M Thyagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

SRI K M THYAGARAJ S/O LATE K. B. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/A NO.404, 5^TH MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, IST STAGE, 3^RD BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560043.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SHASHANK NAGENDRAN.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HAL POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

SMT. JUDY SWEENA KAMAL W/O MANOJ THYAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A NO.A-3, SHRADDHA TULIP APARTMENT, 3^RD FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:14882 CRL.P No. 9759 of 2022

¶19

'A' BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT, KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560037.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. RAGHAVENDRA., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE ORDER TAKING COGNIZANCE PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXIX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU DATED 04.03.2022 IN C.C.NO.51512/2022 WHICH READ PERUSED THE CHARGE SHEET AND DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE I.O PRIMA FACILE THE OFFENCE ALLEGED IS MADE OUT IN CR.NO.551/2018 COGNIZANCE IS TAKEN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.498-A OF IPC REGISTER CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 ARE OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL ISSUE SS TO ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 CALL ON 23.05.2022. AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Proceedings pending in C.C.No.51512/2022 on the

¶27

file of the XXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is sought to be quashed in this petition.

¶28

Respondent No.2 herein lodged a complaint

¶29

with the police against her husband and father-in-law i.e.,

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14882 CRL.P No. 9759 of 2022

¶31

petitioner herein, alleging offences Punishable under Section 506, 498-A, 471, 406, 468 and 420 of IPC which was registered in Crime No.551/2018 of HAL Police Station, Bengaluru.

¶32

Though the complainant in her complaint, alleged dowry harassment, cheating, fraud, impersonation, breach of trust, forgery, blackmail, assault and life threat etc., the police filed charge sheet only for the offence Punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

¶33

In the complaint it is alleged that complainant's husband and father in law have demanded dowry at the time of marriage and the said demand continued even after her marriage. However, a careful perusal of the complaint averments goes to show that the ingredients of Section 498-A are not made out against the petitioner, complainant's father-in-law. Vague and omnibus allegations are made against him and insofar as other allegations are concerned, as already noted, the police have found insufficient materials during investigation and

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14882 CRL.P No. 9759 of 2022

¶35

therefore, did not file charge sheet for those offences alleged in the FIR. In the charge sheet it is alleged that for petty reasons both accused Nos.1 and 2 were subjecting the complainant to physical and mental harassment. The complaint does not indicate any such harassment by the petitioner which would attract the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC, for which the charge sheet is filed.

¶36

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in M.C. Petition filed by the husband before the Family Court at Bengaluru, parties have entered into a settlement, on the basis of which, the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru has dissolved the marriage solemnized between the parties.

¶37

Copy of the memorandum of settlement filed in M.C.No.4487/218 before I additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, is produced.

¶38

By virtue of the above memorandum of

¶39

settlement, a decree of divorce has been granted and the marriage solemnized between accused No.1 and the

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14882 CRL.P No. 9759 of 2022

¶41

complainant has been dissolved. Even though it is stated therein, that the parties are agreed to keep the two cases open including the present criminal proceedings, insofar as the petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned, this Court finds that the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC are not made out.

¶42

The Hon’ble Apex Court in KAHKASHAN

¶43

KAUSAR ALIAN SONAM AND OTHERS V/s. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599

¶44

has observed at paragraph No.17 as under:-

¶45

17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the longterm 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.

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14882 CRL.P No. 9759 of 2022

¶47

Upon consideration of the relevant materials on

¶48

record, this Court finds that the allegations against the petitioner are vague and omnibus in nature and therefore, in the absence any specific role attributed to the petitioner, the criminal proceedings against him cannot be allowed to continue. The general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial, as held in the above noted decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is also held therein that the criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scar upon the accused and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.

¶49

For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) Petition is allowed .

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14882 CRL.P No. 9759 of 2022

¶53

ii) The proceeding in C.C.No.51512/2022 arising out of Crime No.551/2018 of HAL Police Station, Bengaluru pending on the file of the Court of XXIX ACCM, Bengaluru, qua the petitioner/accused No.2, is quashed .

¶54

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶55

LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 BHK

Sri K M Thyagaraj v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K M Thyagaraj 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

Subana Baldar Vs State of Karnataka

Balu K Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Vimal Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Parvinder Singh Vs the State of Karnataka by Hoskote P S

Sri. S Siddaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Anumandala Rajesh Reddy Vs State of Karnataka