Dr. Miss Chandrika S Bhat Vs the State - through — Writ and Judicial Review

DR. MISS CHANDRIKA S BHAT AGED 35 YEARS D/O H SRINIVASA BHAT WORKING AT RAINBOW CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OUTER RING ROAD, NEAR FERNS CITY, DODDANEKUNDI, BENGALURU-560037

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHARADI S SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE - THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARATHAHALLI POLICE STATION, (REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-01

¶15

MRS CHANDINI R SHETTY W/O DR RAKSHAY AGED 37 YEARS, R/AT A-05, ZONASHA, PARADISO, DODDANEKUNDI, BENGALURU-560037

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:22846 WP No. 9420 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SRI.N.DEENAABANDHU RAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE FIR IN CRIME NO.93/2023 OF MARATHAHALLI POLICE STATION DTD 10.04.2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXIX ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498 (A), 323, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 VIDE ANNX-A IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India R/w Section 482 of the code of criminal procedure is by accused No.4 challenging the initiation of criminal proceedings against her in crime No.93/2023 of Marathahalli Police Station, for the offence

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22846 WP No. 9420 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506, Section 34 of IPC.

¶30

It is contended by the petitioner that during her marriage with accused No.1 which was solemnized during 2008, marriage expenses of ₹40 lakhs were borne by her family. In the complaint, respondent No.2 has alleged that as demanded her in-laws also dowry in the form of gold and cash of ₹35 lakhs was paid. After she started residing in her matrimonial home, accused Nos.1 to 3 demanded additional dowry etc., so far as petitioner is concerned, it is alleged that accused No.1 is planning to marry her and on account of it harassed the complainant.

¶31

Petitioner is a doctor having completed her MD in

¶32

paediatrics, fellowship in paediatric rheumatology (UK). She is working in rainbow children's Hospital for more than three years. She is only a colleague of accused No.1 and she has no connection whatsoever with the allegations made against accused Nos. 1 to 3. Unnecessarily, she has

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22846 WP No. 9420 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

been implicated as accused. The allegations of Section 498-A of IPC are not available against a person who is not a member of the family of accused. Only to harass and humiliate the petitioner she has been arrayed as accused.

¶36

It appears when accused No.1 filed petition seeking divorce, as a counterblast, the complaint is filed and unnecessarily petitioner is being implicated.

¶37

In support of the contention of the petition, the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.Suvetha vs State by inspector of police and another, (U.Suvetha)¹ .

¶38

Learned HCGP submitted that making several allegations against accused persons complaint is filed. It requires thorough investigation and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶39

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶40

1 (2009) 6 SCC 757

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:22846 WP No. 9420 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Complainant is the wife of accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of accused No.1. The present petitioner who is accused No.4 is not member of the family of other accused. She is not related to them. It appears that the complainant was suspecting that Accused No.1 is having an affair with petitioner when they were staying at Vijayawada. Alleging that accused Nos.1 to 3 are demanding additional dowry and harassing her, she has filed complaint against them. So far as petitioner is concerned, she is implicated in the complaint by alleging that accused No.1 gave threat to the complainant that he would marry the petitioner.

¶45

As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.Suvetha, the term relative of husband in Section 498-A does not include a girlfriend or concubine. Such a status of a relative is conferred only by blood or marriage or adoption. Meaning of relative depends upon nature of statute. Person who can commit an offence under Section 498-A, is husband and his relatives only. A girlfriend being

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:22846 WP No. 9420 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

not relative cannot be charged under Section 498-A of

¶50

IPC. In the light of this and in the absence of any other allegations, the registering of criminal case against petitioner is not sustainable and continuation of the same

¶51

would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and as such liable to be quashed and accordingly, the following;

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) Petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 under Article 226 of Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C is allowed.

¶54

(ii) Criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.4 in Crime No.93/2023 of Marathahalli Police Station dated 10.04.2023, pending on the file of XXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo hall, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, r/w Section 34 of IPC is

¶55