Arvind Singhal Vs State of Karnataka

REKHA SINGHAL, W/O ARVIND SINGHAL, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT TOWER 5, FLAT NO.92, PEBBLE BAY APARTMENTS, RAMAKRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, DOLLARS COLONY,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26529 CRL.P No. 3974 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

R.M.V. 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560094.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. LAKSHMI IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED IN C.C.NO.30934/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE VIII ADDL. CMM, BENGALURU.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

¶28

High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶29

2. This petition is filed praying this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, who happens to be the husband of the original complainant. This petitioner along with other accused persons earlier had approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.7253/2020, wherein challenge was made with regard to the registration of Crime No.122/2020 for several offences. This Court vide order dated 09.04.2021, dismissed

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26529 CRL.P No. 3974 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

the petition with liberty to file a petition after filing of the charge-sheet, if need arises. Now, the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet and invoked the offences under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 of IPC.

¶33

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that even though charge-sheet is filed and the case is numbered as C.C.No.30934/2021, the material collected by the Investigating Officer does not substantiate the penal provisions of 498A, 504 and 506 of IPC. There is no such specific allegation of cruelty meted out against the wife and also using of abusive words and also causing of life threat to invoke the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. The learned counsel also would submit that an attempt was made making a false allegation against the father-in-law and the same was not substantiated and ultimately, the allegations made against the father-in-law was dropped by filing a ‘B’ report and the same is also accepted.

¶34

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant submits that the material collected by the Investigating Officer is not an omnibus

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:26529 CRL.P No. 3974 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

statement and the witnesses, who have given the statement before the Investigating Officer gave the specific instances as well as specifically stated that cruelty was started from the year 2003 and when the complainant left the house, father-in-law came and took the complainant to the matrimonial house and inspite of it, continued the harassment of cruelty and even caused the threat and abused the complainant as well as the children. The learned counsel also would submit that even children have also made the statement before the police narrating the act of the petitioner. The accused even burnt one of the child by using the cigarette butt and the same is stated before the Investigating Officer and so also the parents, who

¶39

gave the statement before the Investigating Officer. The statement given before the Investigating Officer is very clear with regard to the harassment meted out to the complainant and the same cannot be controverted by this petition and the same requires a trial. Hence, no ground is made out.

¶40

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and considering the earlier order passed by this Court referred supra at the time of consideration of crime, this Court in paragraph No.15

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:26529 CRL.P No. 3974 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

referred the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2018 (3) SCC 104, wherein it is held that the High Court should not venture to probe the matter and also should not sit as an Appellate Court to collect the evidence but allow the Investigating Officer to probe and unearth the crime and summarized the principles in context of the FIR. However, this Court gave liberty to file a petition after filing of the charge-sheet, if need arises.

¶45

6. Now considering the material available on record, which is brought before this Court and also considering the statement of the complainant as well as the parents and also the children, specific allegations are made with regard to using of abusive word as well as causing of threat and also subjecting for cruelty. The statements are made before the Investigating Officer and no such omnibus statements are made and even particular incident is also narrated by the children, the complainant and also the parents of the original complainant. When such being the case, this Court sitting in 482 proceedings cannot controvert the same and the matter requires trial, whether such cruelty is meted out and whether abusive words

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:26529 CRL.P No. 3974 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

are used and caused the life threat. When such material is available before the Court that differences were arisen and she left earlier and subsequently, she was brought back to the matrimonial home and the same is continued and the children also made the statement against the father, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to entertain a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings and the same cannot be controverted in this petition. Hence, I do not find any ground to quash the proceedings by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and no ground is made out to quash the same.

¶49

7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶50

following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

The criminal petition is dismissed.

¶53

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶54

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Arvind Singhal v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Singhal v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pavankumar v G Vs Sri Thyagaraja Nagara Credit Co-Operative Society Limited

M/S Akash Shop and Save Firm Vs Sri G v Giri

Sri Reegun C Vs Smt. Pushpa

Smt. Shravani Vs Smt. B T Jayanthi

P.S Shiva Reddy Vs Sathyan Narayana Reddy

Sri Srinivas Rai Vs Miss Neha