Naresh R. Punjabi Vs Smt. Kavitha S. Punjabi

AYUSHI SUNNY PUNJABI W/O. SUNNY N. PUNJABI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.115, 2^ND FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS, CHURCH ROAD, AKKI THIMMANAHALLI, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶16

&PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY D., ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18384 CRL.P No. 940 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 941 of 2019

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND:

¶21

SMT. KAVITHA S. PUNJABI W/O. SUNIL R. PUNJABI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.T-1, NEW NO.1/010, "A" BLOCK, 3^RD FLOOR, EKTA APARTMENT, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE CITY-560 011.

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA TILAK NAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY, REP/BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶23

&RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.M R PATIL., HCGP FOR R2;

¶25

SRI. KEMPARAJA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 (ABSENT))

¶26

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.14584/2018 (CR.NO.142/2017) ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.

¶27

IN CRL.P NO. 941/2019

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

RAJENDRA R. PUNJABI, S/O LATE. RAMACHANDRA B. PUNJABI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶30

SUNITHA R. PUNJABI, W/O RAJENDRA R. PUNJABI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶31

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: NO.115, 1^ST FLOOR,

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18384 CRL.P No. 940 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 941 of 2019

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

3^RD CROSS, CHURCH ROAD, AKKI THIMMANAHALLI, SHANTHINAGARA BENGALURU-560027.

¶35

...PETITIONERS

¶36

(BY SRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY D.,ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

SMT KAVITHA S. PUNJABI, W/O SUNIL R. PUNJABI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.T-1, NEW NO.1/010 'A' BLOCK, 3^RD FLOOR EKTA APARTMENT, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE CITY-560011.

¶39

STATE OF KARNATAKA ITS TILAK NAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY REP/BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI.M.R. PATAIL., HCGP FOR R2; SRI. KEMPARAJA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 (ABSENT))

¶42

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.14584/2018 (CR.NO.142/2017) ON THE FILE OF TEH II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

¶43

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

¶44

4 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:18384 CRL.P No. 940 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 941 of 2019

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶48

ORAL ORDER

¶49

The petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 in Criminal Petition No.940/2019 are the accused Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 in C.C.No.14584/2018 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.941/2019 are the accused Nos.2 and 3 in the aforesaid case. The petitioners have all challenged the filing of a charge sheet against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (henceforth referred to as 'DP Act'). They have also challenged the order, taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences and registration of C.C.No.14584/2018.

¶50

(i) Briefly stated the facts that can be gathered

¶51

from the petition as well as the charge sheet are that the respondent No.1 informed the respondent No.2 on 18.03.2017 that she was married to the accused No.1 on 02.09.2010. She claimed that after marriage she shifted to Mangalore and her

¶52

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18384 CRL.P No. 940 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 941 of 2019

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

in-laws were residing in the same house and were physically and mentally harassing her. She alleged that her husband also physically abused her. She alleged that on demand by her inlaws, her parents had spent a sum of Rs.16,000/- on ornaments during her baby shower and that she gave birth to a daughter on 30.08.2011, and all the expenses in the hospital were met by her parents. She alleged that she was harassed for giving birth to a daughter. She alleged that she was sent out of the house to bring money from her parents to buy an apartment in Bangalore. She alleged that her mother paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and while her sisters paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each. She claimed that her husband had taken

¶55

away her ornaments valued at Rs.25,00,000/- for purchasing the flat. She claimed that a flat was purchased in Jayanagar, 8^th Block. She alleged that her husband had an illicit relationship with Mrs. Heena Kousar and when she questioned him the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in Crl.P.No.940/2019 abused her. She alleged that her husband wanted to sell the flat and when she refused, he left the house on 13.02.2017. When she asked her in-laws, they told her that her husband was not with them and also threatened her of her life.

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18384 CRL.P No. 940 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 941 of 2019

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

(ii) She also alleged that all the accused conspired to throw her out of the apartment and sell it. She therefore alleged that all the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.

¶59

(iii) Based on this, the respondent No.1 registered Crime No.0142/2017 for the aforesaid offences and took up investigation. After recording the statements of the relevant witnesses and drawing relevant mahazars, a charge sheet was filed for the aforesaid offences. The trial Court took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued process. The petitioners being aggrieved by the filing of charge sheet as well as the order taking cognizance and issuing process have approached this Court.

¶60

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the statement of CW-9 was recorded, which disclosed that all the petitioners had reached the house of the respondent No.1 and her husband in order to settle the matrimonial dispute. He submits that his statement establishes beyond doubt that the petitioners are residing separately while the

¶61

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18384 CRL.P No. 940 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 941 of 2019

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

respondent No.1 and her husband are residing separately and that the petitioners had gone to the house only with an intent to settle their matrimonial dispute. He therefore submits that the petitioners have been unnecessarily roped into the case only to harass them. Therefore, they pray that the proceedings initiated against them be set at nought.

¶64

The learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that a charge sheet is now filed and therefore, the petitioners are bound to approach the trial Court seeking discharge. He therefore prays that the petition be dismissed so that the trial of the case could go on.

¶65

The learned counsel for respondent No.1 is absent

¶66

and therefore this Court did not have the benefit of his submissions.

¶67

A perusal of the charge sheet would show that except for a bare allegation that the petitioners had harassed her and threatened her of being dispossessed from the apartment where she was living along with her husband, there is no tangible evidence to show that the petitioners had committed any offences punishable under Section 498A or

¶68

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:18384 CRL.P No. 940 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 941 of 2019

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Sections 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The allegations of the respondent No.1 are primarily directed against her husband, namely the accused No.1. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, CW-9 was the security guard at the apartment where the respondent No.1 was living with her husband. He gave his statement stating that during August 2016, the relatives of or the husband of the respondent No.1 visited the apartment. This statement therefore indicated that the petitioners were not residing with the respondent No.1 as claimed by her in her information to the respondent No.2. It also appears from the statement that the petitioners left on the same day and took away the accused No.1 along with them. This therefore establishes that the petitioners had visited the apartment on the said day only to advise the respondent No.1 and her husband. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, is without any basis and is a clear abuse of the process of law. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others vs. State of Telangana and Another - (2025) 3 SCC 735 , the

¶71

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:18384 CRL.P No. 940 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 941 of 2019

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would be perpetuating the abuse and hence, the same deserves to be set at nought.

¶74

In view of the above, the following order is passed:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

i. These petitions are allowed ;

¶77

ii. The prosecution of the petitioners in both the petitions, by the respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in C.C.No.14584/2018, on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, are quashed. However, the prosecution of the accused No.1 shall continue.

¶78

Sd/-

¶79

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶80

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Naresh R. Punjabi v. Smt. Kavitha S. Punjabi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh R. Punjabi v. Smt. Kavitha S. Punjabi

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

Sri. R. Murugan Vs Smt. Vasanthalakshmi

Jolly Stephen Vs Mr. Thomas Kuruvilla

Mrs HUDA Abdul Aleem Vs Spaceline Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Noor Sheikh a M Alias Noori Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ghouse Khan Vs State of Harihara

Mr.Sandeep Vishwanath Vs Mr.Anush Martio James