Sri Raju S Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri Raju S Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; proceedings in CC.no.1151/2018 (printed as 'CC.no.115/2018' in the operative order) on file of Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hiriyur, for offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498(A) of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, quashed, to secure ends of justice by invoking inherent powers.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings in CC.no.1151/2018 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hiriyuru, against petitioners (accused nos.1 to 6) for offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498(A) of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in view of the settlement between complainant and petitioner no.1, the divorce decree, and the complainant's stated intention to withdraw prosecution.

Court's answer

Perusal of the complainant's deposition in the divorce proceedings indicates there was settlement between complainant and petitioner no.1, whereunder she had agreed for withdrawal of the complaint and criminal proceedings; thus the complainant herself is noted to have withdrawn from prosecution.

Ratio / Principle

Column no.17 of the charge sheet reveals that the main basis for invocation of the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498(A) IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act were allegations made by the complainant herself, except the incident of 14.05.2017.

Key takeaways

Though the complainant's parents were cited as eye witnesses to the 14.05.2017 incident, careful perusal of the statements recorded by police indicates they were not eyewitnesses to the incident of assault.ratio¶66
When the materials are considered in light of the complainant's statement that she intends to withdraw criminal prosecution, chances of conviction of accused no.1 are bleak, and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.ratio¶67
Even if the charge sheet and material collected by police were taken on their face value, the alleged offences would not be substantiated.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 1482 of 2019 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (parallel citation to Section 528 BNSS) - Quashing of proceedings. Petitioners, arraigned as accused nos.1 to 6 (husband, his mother, sister, brother and two neighbours) in a complaint dated 04.07.2017 (Crime no.221/2017; charge sheet 09.10.2018) alleging offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498(A) IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in CC.no.1151/2018 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur, sought quashing. During the pendency, the complainant and petitioner no.1 settled; MC.no.35/2018 under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ended in a decree of divorce on 07.03.2019, and in her deposition therein the complainant stated she would not pursue and would withdraw the criminal proceedings. The Court found from Column 17 of the charge sheet that the allegations were chiefly the complainant's own save the 14.05.2017 incident, and that the parents cited as eye witnesses were not in fact eyewitnesses to the assault; that chances of conviction were bleak; that continuation would amount to abuse of process of law; and that even on the face value of the charge sheet and police material the offences would not be substantiated. Invoking inherent powers to secure the ends of justice, the petition was allowed and the proceedings quashed. (The State's submission that Section 498(A) IPC and Sections 3 and 4 DP Act are non-compoundable was urged by counsel; the Court did not expressly engage with it.)