Partly allowed

Somashekhar B v. Smt Swetha N

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2026CRL.P/9457/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the husband's petition to quash domestic violence proceedings, finding specific allegations of cruelty and dowry demand against him. However, it allowed the in-laws' petition and quashed proceedings against them, holding that only vague, omnibus allegations were made without specific overt acts, which amounted to abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Crl.P.No.9457/2018 dismissed; Crl.P.No.5641/2017 allowed and proceedings against the in-laws quashed.

Somashekhar B Vs Smt Swetha N — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2026)

Outcome

Crl.P.No.9457/2018 dismissed; Crl.P.No.5641/2017 allowed and proceedings against the in-laws quashed.

Issue for consideration

Whether proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the husband can be quashed when specific allegations of cruelty and dowry demand are made. +2 more

Detailed headnote3 paragraphs

The court considered two connected criminal petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). In Crl.P.No.9457/2018, the husband (Somashekar B.) challenged proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.14/2017, arguing the complaint was filed after an 8-month delay as an afterthought to harass him. In Crl.P.No.5641/2017, the in-laws (father Banavaiah and brother Umesh) sought quashing on the ground that no specific allegations were made against them.

The complainant wife alleged that the husband subjected her to cruelty on 19.10.2015, beat her, choked her, pulled her braid, and demanded money; she left the matrimonial home that day. She filed a police complaint on 22.07.2016 and the DV Act petition on 28.01.2017. Police filed a chargesheet against the husband under IPC Sections 506, 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act Sections 3 and 4, but filed a 'B' report (closure) for the in-laws.

The court held that specific allegations of physical assault and mental torture were made against the husband in paragraph 7 of the DV petition, which must be ascertained at trial; therefore, quashing was not warranted. As to the in-laws, only a general averment was made that they 'joined hands' with the husband and caused threats, without any overt-act allegations. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9556/2022 dated 07.02.2025, paragraph 35), the court observed that implicating relatives without specific allegations amounts to abuse of process. Accordingly, the husband's petition was dismissed, while the in-laws' petition was allowed and proceedings against them were quashed.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:50481 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 5641 of 2017

¶3

CNR: KAHC010263132018

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9457 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5641 OF 2017

¶9

IN CRL.P No.9457/2018:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SOMASHEKHAR B., S/O BANAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.55, 1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

(BY SRI. RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE)

¶16

SMT SWETHA N., W/O SOMASHEKHAR B, D/O H. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.92, 4^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN, DIAGONAL ROAD, RPC ROAD, HAMPINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 104.

¶17

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:50481 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 5641 of 2017

¶20

CNR: KAHC010263132018

¶21

BANAVAIAH, S/O LINGAPPA, AGEDA BOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.55, VYJAYANTHA, 1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶22

UMESH, S/O BANAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.55, VYJAYANTH, 1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. BALASUBRAMANYA B.N., ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.01.2025,

¶25

SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.MISC.NO.14/2017 INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AND TRAFFIC COURT, BENGALURU, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶27

IN CRL.P NO.5641/2017:

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

SRI. BANAVAIAH C.N., S/O LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO.55, VYJAYANTH, 1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003,

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:50481 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 5641 of 2017

¶31

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CNR: KAHC010263132018

¶34

SRI. UMESH B., S/O BANAVAIAH C.N., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.55, VYJAYANTH, 1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶35

...PETITIONERS

¶36

(BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENT BY MALLESHWARA P.S., BENGALURU-560003, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-01. (VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 12.09.2017, RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DELETED).

¶39

SMT. SHWETHA N., W/O SOMASHEKAR, D/O H. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.92, 4^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, DIAGONAL ROAD, RPC ROAD, HAMPINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 004.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

(VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 12.09.2017, R1 IS DELETED; SRI. BALASUBRAMANYA B.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶42

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT IN CRL.MISC.NO.14/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AND TRAFFIC COURT-

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:50481 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 5641 of 2017

¶45

¶46

CNR: KAHC010263132018

¶47

III, BENGALURU, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

ORAL ORDER

¶51

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents in both the petitions.

¶52

2. These two petitions are filed by the husband as well as in-laws of the complainant, respectively, praying this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against them in Crl.Misc.No.14/2017, wherein invoked the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV’ Act for short).

¶53

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.9457/2018 would vehemently contend that only with an intention to harass the petitioner/husband, a case is filed against him. The learned counsel would contend that a petition is filed by respondent No.1/complainant in Crl.Misc.No.14/2017 alleging domestic violence at the hands of the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is alleged that the petitioner subjected her to cruelty on 19.10.2015 at 12.30 a.m. and she

¶54

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:50481 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 5641 of 2017

¶57

CNR: KAHC010263132018

¶58

left the matrimonial home on 19.10.2015. However, respondent No.1 lodged the said complaint on 22.07.2016 almost 8 months later and the petition in Crl.Misc.No.14/2017 on 28.01.2017, before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate and Traffic Court, Bangalore, alleging domestic violence as an afterthought by abusing the process of law to harass the petitioner unjustifiably. The learned counsel would contend that when the differences were arisen between the husband and wife, the petitioner himself has given notice and thereafter, all sorts of acts is done by the wife. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the averments made in the petition in Crl.Misc.No.14/2017 and prayer sought under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that when the notice was given on 01.06.2016 as per Annexure-B, the same was served on her on 02.06.2016 as per Annexure-C. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court Annexure-D that she did not participate in the said case. Hence, the petitioner has issued the notice on 14.07.2016 and thereafter only, afterthought a complaint was filed as per Annexure-F and so also

¶59

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:50481 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 5641 of 2017

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

CNR: KAHC010263132018

¶62

Crl.Misc.No.14/2017 is initiated. The learned counsel also would submit that in view of the complaint, offences under Sections 506, 498A read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (‘DP Act’ for short) are invoked. The police also investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 506, 498A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the DP Act and the same is only against the petitioner and not against the in-laws and ‘B’ report is filed in respect of the in-laws.

¶63

4. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.5641/2017 i.e., in-laws

¶64

of the complainant, have also sought for quashing of the proceedings initiated against them along with the husband in Crl.Misc.No.14/2017. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that when investigation was conducted, ‘B’ report was filed and the same was not challenged. The learned counsel also vehemently contend that there is no any specific accusation against the in-laws and only with an intention to harass them, they have been made as parties in the proceedings. The learned counsel in support of his arguments relies upon the order passed by the Apex Court

¶65

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:50481 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 5641 of 2017

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

CNR: KAHC010263132018

¶68

in Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9556/2022 dated 07.02.2025 and brought to the notice of this Court the discussion made in paragraph Nos.29, 31 and particularly 35, wherein the Apex Court made an observation that in criminal cases relating to domestic violence, the complainants and charges should be specific, as far as possible, as against each and every member of the family who are accused of such offences and sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to misuse of the stringent criminal process by indiscriminately dragging all the members of the family.

¶69

5. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that in the case on hand, there is no specific allegation against these petitioners. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court Criminal Miscellaneous proceedings, particularly paragraph Nos.11, 12, wherein it is stated that case was registered in Crime No.132/2016 and police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. But did not disclose the fact that ‘B’ report was filed against these two petitioners and only mentioned about taking of cognizance by the Court.

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:50481 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 5641 of 2017

¶72

¶73

CNR: KAHC010263132018

¶74

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

¶75

respondent/complainant would vehemently contend that the averments made in the criminal miscellaneous petition itself is very clear and particularly in respect of the husband is concerned, in paragraph No.7, it is categorically stated that he has neglected her and was not taking her out of the house and was not expressing any love or affection towards her since she could not bring money demanded by him. It is also an allegation that the husband started abusing and beating her and started saying that if she does not bring money as demanded by him, she will be treated as a servant at home. Unfortunately, in-laws also joined hands with her husband and they also started threatening her of giving more torture if she fails to bring money from her father's house. The learned counsel would contend that an allegation is made not only against the husband, but also against the in-laws that they are supporting her husband and subjected her for harassment. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that during October 2015, the respondents threatened her of chopping her with hatchet and killing her. The first respondent had also

¶76

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

NC: 2026:KHC:50481 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 5641 of 2017

¶79

CNR: KAHC010263132018

¶80

asked the petitioner to get out of the house so that he can marry another girl and the petitioner called up her parents several times and informed this fact to them. The respondents became furious and on 19.10.2015 at about 12.30 a.m., respondent No.1 started beating the petitioner mercilessly, choked her neck, pulled her braid and tortured her physically.

¶81

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents and also considering the material on record, specific allegations are made against the husband. But word was added ‘unfortunately’ respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e., the in-laws also joined hands with her husband and they also started threatening her. This averment is very clear that specific physical assault and mental torture is attributed against the husband and not against the in-laws. No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.10 of the criminal miscellaneous petition, but in paragraph No.10, specific allegation is made against the husband and only an allegation is made against the in-laws that

¶82

10 -

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:50481 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 5641 of 2017

¶85

CNR: KAHC010263132018

¶86

they also caused the threat. No overt-act allegations are made against the in-laws.

¶87

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this Court that when the notice was issued to the respondent/complainant, she did not turn up and hence, the husband only issued the legal notice and thereafter only, afterthought the petition is filed making an allegation against them. No doubt, in the complaint filed by the wife, police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet only against the husband and not against the in-laws. The same is also not challenged before the Court. When specific allegations are made against the husband, it is not a case to prevent the respondent/complainant from initiating the domestic violence proceedings against the husband. Insofar as the in-laws are concerned, there are no specific overt-act allegations against them and only an omnibus statement is made that they are also supporting the husband and causing threat. The learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5641/2017 brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Apex Court referred supra, wherein in paragraph No.35, it is held that

¶88

11 -

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

NC: 2026:KHC:50481 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 5641 of 2017

¶91

CNR: KAHC010263132018

¶92

implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations would amount to abuse of process of law. When such being the material available on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5641/2017 have made out a case to quash the proceedings against them. But in respect of the husband is concerned, in paragraph No.7 of the petition, specific allegations are made against him and the same has to be ascertained during the course of trial and hence, it is not a case for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in Crl.P.No.9457/2018.

¶93

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

¶94

following:

¶95

ORDER

¶96

(i) Crl.P.No.9457/2018 is dismissed.

¶97