SMT R JYOTHI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55605
CRL.P No. 178 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010002552024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 178 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. R.JYOTHI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O SRI. H.NAGARAJA
R/AT NO.1/1, 1ST B MAIN ROAD
5TH CROSS,
MARUTHI APARTMENT ROAD
KAVERI LAYOUT,
AMARAJYOTHINAGAR,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 040.
2.
SRI. H.NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
R/AT NO.1/1, 1ST B MAIN ROAD,
5TH CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT,
AMARAJYOTHINAGAR,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 040.
…PETITIONERS
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI.SAMARTH S.MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.MUNISWAMY GOWDA S.G., ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55605
CRL.P No. 178 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010002552024
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
RAMAMURTHYNAGAR POLICE STATION
RAMAMURTHYNAGAR
BANGALORE 560 016
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MRS. NIKITHA G.R.
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
W/O. HARISH. H.N.
R/AT NO.35, WHITE HOUSE,
10TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS,
NANDANA, HORAMAVU,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHESHA P., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI.R.KRISHNA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.59088/2023, ON THE
FILE OF THE X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT
MAYO HALL, BENGALURU CITY, REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A), 506, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3
AND 4 OF D.P. ACT OF RAMAMURTHYNAGAR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55605
CRL.P No. 178 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010002552024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and
3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC
No.59088/2023, arising out of Crime No.126/2023 dated
06.03.2023, filed by the Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru City, against the petitioners and accused No.1 for
the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 506, 504 r/w
34 of IPC pending on the file of X ACMM Bengaluru.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged the complaint before respondent No.1-Police on
06.03.2023, alleging that her marriage was solemnized with
accused No.1-Harish H.N. on 29.10.2018 at Thanisandra,
Bengaluru. It is alleged that, at the time of engagement,
accused No.1 demanded dowry and also insisted that the
marriage be performed in a grand manner. According to
respondent No.2, the said demands were complied with by her
parents. After the marriage, respondent No.2 started residing
with accused No.1 and his parents/accused Nos.2 and 3, who
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55605
CRL.P No. 178 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010002552024
are the petitioners herein. It is alleged that their marital
relationship remained cordial for about one year. Thereafter,
accused No.1, the husband of respondent No.2, and the
petitioners, allegedly started subjecting respondent No.2 to
mental and physical harassment. It is further alleged that she
was compelled to quit her employment and was subjected to
mental and physical torture by making allegations against her
character and passing comments. It is further alleged that the
petitioners expressed dissatisfaction for not bringing the
enough gold, dowry and car. Respondent No.2 has also alleged
that petitioner No.1, being her mother-in-law, did not provide
her with proper food.
3. It is further alleged that owing to the continuous mental
and physical harassment, respondent No.2 allegedly made
attempts to commit suicide on three occasions. It is further
alleged that, in view of the matrimonial disputes, a panchayat
was convened, wherein the members of the panchayat
counselled the accused not to indulge in such acts and advised
them not to harass respondent No.2. Despite the intervention
of the panchayat, accused No.1 and the petitioners allegedly
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55605
CRL.P No. 178 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010002552024
continued to subject respondent No.2 to harassment, ultimately
compelling her to leave the matrimonial home. Left with no
other option, respondent No.2 started residing at her parental
home and thereafter lodged the complaint before respondent
No.1-Police. On the basis of the said complaint, respondent
No.1-Police registered the case against accused No.1 and the
petitioners herein in Crime No.126/2023 for the
aforementioned offences.
4. Subsequently, respondent No.1-Police conducted
investigation and laid charge sheet against the petitioners for
the aforementioned offences. The learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the offences and proceeded against the accused.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred the
present petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for respondent No.2 as well as learned HCGP.
6. Apart from urging several other contentions, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners primarily contended that,
except for the bald and omnibus allegations made in the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55605
CRL.P No. 178 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010002552024
complaint and the charge-sheet, there are no specific
allegations or particulars of any specific incident attributable to
these petitioners, who are the in-laws of respondent No.2. He
further contended that the petitioners resided along with
accused No.1 and respondent No.2, only for a short period and
thereafter shifted to another home. In such circumstances,
there was no occasion or possibility for the petitioners to have
subjected respondent No.2 to the alleged harassment. The
learned counsel further submitted that, on earlier occasions
also, respondent No.2 had lodged similar complaints before the
Police. However, the Police had not registered any FIR and had
instead advised the parties to resolve their matrimonial
differences and lead a peaceful married life. Despite the same,
respondent No.2 has once again lodged the present complaint
on similar allegations. It is therefore contended that the
present complaint has been lodged against the petitioners out
of vengeance and with an ulterior motive to implicate them in
the matrimonial dispute between accused No.1 and respondent
No.2.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55605
CRL.P No. 178 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010002552024
7. According to the learned counsel, the allegations made in
the complaint and the material collected during investigation do
not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence punishable
under Section 498-A of IPC against these petitioners.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.
Accordingly he prays to allow the petition.
8. To buttress his argument he relied on the judgment of
"Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Ors. vs. State of Bihar
& Ors." in Crl.A.No.195/2022 (in SLP (Crl.)No.6545/2020)
9. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 contended that the investigation has been completed and
the charge sheet has been laid against the petitioners. He
submits that the averments made in the charge sheet clearly
disclose that the petitioners, being the in-laws of respondent
No.2, subjected her to both mental and physical harassment.
The learned counsel further contended that the complaint
contains specific allegations of harassment against petitioner
No.1, who is the mother-in-law of respondent No.2. In
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55605
CRL.P No. 178 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010002552024
particular, it is alleged that petitioner No.1 failed to provide
proper food to respondent No.2 and subjected her to
harassment in the matrimonial home. According to the learned
counsel, the petitioners were residing along with accused No.1
and respondent No.2 at the matrimonial home and, therefore,
their contention that they had no occasion to subject
respondent No.2 to harassment cannot be accepted at this
stage. He further submits that petitioner No.1 was the root
cause of the matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and
respondent No.2. It is further contended that the statements of
the material witnesses recorded during the course of
investigation also disclose the involvement of the petitioners in
the alleged offences. Therefore, according to the learned
counsel, the material collected during investigation prima facie
discloses the commission of the alleged offences by the
petitioners. Accordingly, he submits that, having regard to the
specific allegations made against the petitioners and the
material collected during investigation, this is not a fit case for
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings at
this stage. Hence, he prays to dismissal the petition.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55605
CRL.P No. 178 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010002552024
10. This prayer is also opposed by the learned HCGP on the
ground that the witnesses CWs.4 to 7 clearly stated about the
involvement of these two petitioners in the crime. As such he
submit that at this stage the petition cannot be entertained and
proceeding cannot be quashed. Accordingly, he prays to
dismiss the petition.
11. I have given my anxious consideration both on the
submission and perused the entire charge sheet materials.
12. As could be gathered from the charge-sheet materials,
the relationship between the petitioners and respondent No.2 is
not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, after the marriage,
respondent No.2 started residing in the matrimonial home
along with accused No.1 and the petitioners. The complainant
specifically alleges that, at the time of engagement, the
petitioners, along with accused No.1, demanded dowry in the
form of gold and a car and also insisted that the marriage be
performed in a grand manner. It is further alleged that, after
the marriage, accused No.1 subjected respondent No.2 to
physical and mental harassment in connection with the demand
for additional dowry. The complaint further attributes a specific
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55605
CRL.P No. 178 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010002552024
role to petitioner No.1, who is the mother-in-law of respondent
No.2. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 actively participated in
the alleged harassment, insisted upon accused No.1 subjecting
respondent No.2 to harassment and failed to take proper care
of respondent No.2. In particular, there is a specific allegation
that petitioner No.1 failed to provide proper food to respondent
No.2. The aforesaid allegations are not confined to the
complaint alone, but are also stated to have been corroborated
by the statements of the material witnesses, namely, CWs.4 to
7. Whether these allegations are true and whether the conduct
attributed to petitioner No.1 constitutes the alleged offences
are matters which have to be tested in a detailed trial. At this
stage, the material on record discloses prima facie allegations
against petitioner No.1 and, therefore, the proceedings insofar
as petitioner No.1 is concerned cannot be quashed at this
stage.
13. As far as petitioner No.2 i.e. the father-in-law is
concerned, on perusal of the complaint and charge sheet
averments except some ominous allegation, no other specific
incident of harassment is stated. The statement of witnesses
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55605
CRL.P No. 178 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010002552024
also reveals only such ominous allegations against petitioner
No.2. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the
case of K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, represented
by its Secretary, Department of Home and Others,
reported in 2024 INSC 960 , and Dara Lakshmi Narayan v.
State of Telangana, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735 , held, in
paragraph Nos.25 and 28, as under:
“ 25 . A mere reference to the names of family
members in a criminal case arising out of a
matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations
indicating their active involvement should be nipped
in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of
judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to
implicate all the members of the husband’s family
when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial
discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations
unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized
allegations cannot form the basis for criminal
prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such
cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the
legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of
innocent family members. In the present case,
appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the
family of appellant No.1 have been living in different
cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house
of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein.
Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal
prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55605
CRL.P No. 178 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010002552024
process of the law in the absence of specific
allegations made against each of them.
28 . The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by
way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty
inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family,
ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in
recent years, as there have been a notable rise in
matrimonial disputes across the country,
accompanied by growing discord and tension within
the institution of marriage, consequently, there has
been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like
Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing
personal vendetta against the husband and his
family by a wife. Making vague and generalised
allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not
scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes
and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics
by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is
taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the
husband and his family in order to seek compliance
with the unreasonable demands of a wife.
Consequently, this Court has, time and again,
cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his
family in the absence of a clear prima facie case
against them.”
14. Placing reliance on the above judgments, I am of the
considered view that continuation of proceedings against
petitioner No.2 i.e. accused No.3 the father-in-law amounts to
an abuse of process of Court. As discussed supra , prima facie
case is made out against petitioner No.1/accused No.2 i.e.,
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55605
CRL.P No. 178 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010002552024
mother-in-law who was residing along with her son accused
No.1, as such, proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage
against her. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The criminal petition is allowed in respect of
petitioner No.2/accused No.3.
ii. The criminal petition is dismissed in respect of
petitioner No.1/accused No.2
iii. The proceedings against the petitioner
No.2/accused No.3 in CC No.59088/2023,
arising out of Crime No.126/2023 dated
06.03.2023, filed by the Ramamurthy Nagar
Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 506, 504
r/w 34 of IPC pending on the file of X ACMM
Bengaluru, are hereby quashed.
iv. However, it is made clear that proceedings
shall continue against petitioner No.1/accused
No.2.
v. However, the observations made in this order
shall not influence the Trial Court while
disposing of the proceedings.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
GPG/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3