Sri. Arun Kumar. K. T. Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE P/U/S 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 85 OF BNS U/S 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961 FILED BY THE HIRIYUR TOWN POLICE, SAME IS PENDING BEFORE ON THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, AT HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT IN C.C.NO.1683/2024 AT ANNEXURE-E & ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner/husband has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No.1683/2024, arising out of offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 85 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the complaint lodged by respondent No.2/wife is a counterblast to the matrimonial case in M.C. No.121/2024, instituted by the petitioner seeking dissolution of marriage.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:35116 CRL.P No.990/2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The prosecution case, as narrated in the complaint, is that respondent No.2, who is legally wedded to the petitioner, was subjected to harassment and humiliation at the hands of her husband and his family members. It is alleged that the in-laws consistently abused her in filthy language, prevented her from cohabiting with the petitioner, and thereby deprived her of marital life. The further allegation is that the petitioner himself never evinced interest in leading a marital relationship, as he was deliberately made to sleep with his brothers, thereby denying the complainant conjugal companionship.

¶30

At this stage, it is relevant to extract the pertinent portion of the allegations as contained in the FIR, which reads as follows:

¶31

“ΐėỳгу:31.07.2024�џгѕ—�07.00�ΓнгĆ’�∆AiÀiÁð¢�ďỳĒ’Ć’� ĦỳъĞỳ¯�Β†Ήѕ�Ρˇѓ�ѕ―џї—Ļ�Χņ†уΠΧ�јΠΥ†ΡẃĠỳ¯�∆AiÀiÁðΐĆ’� ˜ѓłѕ—UÀð�їхџѕ�ќюѕ�у—џ—њџẄ·Ĳ�ĢỳΧĝỳѕ�жĞ’―†Γѓ�еџ—κ� у—Ĝỳџџ್ẀĞ’―гΐĆ’�ΐėỳгу:�02.12.2021�џгѕ—�ΨΠў―џ—�Ď„ο�ēỳĦỳ� ĘỳŁĠ’†ύ�їΡń�ΤĢỳẄ�ĜỳΉĄ’―·Ĳѕ—Ĺ�ќѕ—Ģ’ў�їгѓџ�хгяї�ќѓ—ķ� у—э—гњѕẀџ�ċ’―ē’ўΡń�ĢỳẃΤѕ—Ĺ�ќѕ—Ģ’ў�їгѓџ�∆AiÀiÁð¢ў�хгя� ẃΠĝỳ¯�∆AiÀiÁðΐЏгΐĆ’�ĥỳгĥỳΠу�R†Ẁї�їĐ’ẃĕ’†,�їїĻ�хгя�еџ—κ�

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:35116 CRL.P No.990/2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

у—Ĝỳφ,�еē’ķ�ģỳгѓќŀ,�ėỳΐΒ�Ģ’гуэќŀ,�ĜỳẀ�хгĆỳіџјļ,�ќē’―ķњľ� ėỳΐΒ�ė’†ēỳłẀΎ�нґńџ―�ĥ’†ΠĄ’―гя—�рњľΠĆ’―њľџ—�ẁΠ†Ąỳ¯�∆AiÀiÁðΐĆ’� ẃ―ġ’�ќ—гĐ’,�Ě’―†Σ�ќ—гĐ’�нгѕ— еĢỳшŁ�ẁњĹхΣгѕ�Ě’‡ĕỳя—Ύķѕ—Ĺѕґńĕ’†� ѓќŀ�хгяė’―гΐĆ’�Ĝỳѓėỳяґ—�ќѓ—ķ�ĕỳгјѓŁ�R†Ẁї�їĐ’ẃґ—�Θяĕ’†� ĜỳїΧу�ќѓ—ķ�ĕ’‡Ψу�Ψгĥ’ � Β†я—ΎķѕĹґńĕ’†�уġ’ѕ�02�ẀµÀð�∆AiÀiÁðΐў� хгяΒĆ’�ѓќŀ�еē’ķ�ѓЅŀгΐĆ’�ќґ¯ΧĄ’―ಳùŅΎķѕ—Ĺ�и�њĆ’Ī�∆AiÀiÁðΐ� Ą’†Σĕỳ¯�Ħ’˜ĭїĕỳ¯�5,00,000/-�ẄђẀї—Ļ�∆AiÀiÁðΐў�ѓгĕ’ēỳΝΝгѕ�јĐ’ѕ—Ą’―гя—� §џ—Ẁгē’ў―�зґńĢỳѕΡń�Βќŀ�ēỳΝ� ќė’ўΡńџ—Ẁгē’�Ħ’†Σ�ĜỳїΧуĢỳ¯�Ψгĥ’�Β†Ήџ—ēỳķĞ’.�еґńĕ’†�ΐėỳгу:� 28.03.2024�џгѕ—�ΨΠў―џ—�ќΨġỳ�ĥỳгēỳņї�Ą’†гѕłѕΡń�ѕ―џ—�Β†Ήѕ—Ĺ� ĥỳгēỳņї�Ą’†гѕłѕẀџ—�йћў�јƒĆỳџџ�Ħ’†ΣĄ’хಳї—Ļ�јĐ’ѕ—�хгяї�ċ’―ē’� ẃгĥỳџ�Ĝỳя—Ẁгē’�Ħ’†Σ�уಳùΨΧѕ—Ĺ�їгѓџ�ј—їд�ẀџѕΩĒ’ĝỳ¯� 5,00,000/-�ẄђẀї—Ļ�ѓџ—Ẁгē’ў―�зґńĢỳѕΡń�џ―г�їΡń�у―Ή�Ħỳˆ�Ě’гˆ� Ẅ˜ĭ�ĥỳΝẃ—Ẁ÷ĕỳ¯�Ęỳłђ�Ě’ѕΠĄ’�Ħỳˆџ—Ẁ÷ѕґńĕ’†�ΐėỳгу:�12.07.2024� џгѕ—�ѓїĻ�ѓгĕ’ЏгΐĆ’�ѓẀџ—�ќė’Ć’�ĢỳĘỳύ�њгΐѕ—Ĺ�ΐėỳгу:� 28.07.2024�џгѕ—�09.00�Γнг�ẃќўѕΡń�Λ†ґĨгяĢ’ґńџ―�њгѕ—� еĢỳшŁ�ẁњĹхΣгѕ�Ě’‡ĕỳΉ�∆AiÀiÁð¢ў�хгя�Ą’‡Νгѕ�∆AiÀiÁðΐĆ’� Ħ’―Đ’ѕ—�ẀџѕΩĒ’�ẄђẀї—Ļ�ѓџ—Ẁгē’�Ħ’†Σ�∆AiÀiÁðΐĆ’�ќѓ—ķ�еẀџ�ѓгĕ’ēỳΝĆ’�іќ—ˆ�Ħỳˆџ—ēỳķĞ’.�Λ†ґĨгяẀџ�Τџ—ѕĺ�ẃ―уķ�Ąỳї―ї—�уłќ� ъџ—¯Χ�зēỳŁΐ�нгѕ— �зzÀÝ� ѕ―Πї�Λ†Ğ’Ć’�Ą’†ẃ—�ĕỳфΡΧ�ѓΒą’� Ą’‡Ć’―гΉџ—ē’ķ.”�

¶36

On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint, pursuant to which a case

¶37

came to be registered. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet against the

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:35116 CRL.P No.990/2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

petitioner. A perusal of the charge sheet would indicate that there are not only specific and detailed allegations made against the petitioner/husband, but also that the same are supported by statements of witnesses who claim to have knowledge of the alleged acts of harassment and cruelty.

¶42

The charge sheet materials, if taken at their face value, disclose the presence of eye-witnesses as well as other supporting material to substantiate the accusations levelled by the complainant/wife. These materials, at this stage, cannot be discarded or brushed aside as vague or omnibus. On the contrary, they prima facie reveal that there are concrete allegations directed against the petitioner and other accused, warranting a full-fledged trial.

¶43

In view of the existence of such prima facie material, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to seek quashment of the proceedings. Interference at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution.

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:35116 CRL.P No.990/2025

¶45