Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against Husband’s Maternal Aunt Living In Another District Over Vague Instigation Allegation

In brief

The question

1. Whether the proceedings should be quashed against petitioners Nos. 1–3 in light of the petitioners’ disputed factual contentions and the allegations in the complaint.

The court held

The petition was allowed in part.

It also directed

Proceedings in C.C. No. 2593/2025 were quashed only as against petitioner No. 4 (accused No. 4); they were to continue against petitioners Nos. 1–3 (accused Nos. 1–3).

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the quashing petition and left all contentions open.

01Facts

Respondent No. 2, the complainant, is the wife of petitioner No. 1.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3

Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are his parents, and petitioner No. 4 is the sister of his mother, who resides in another district.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3 · p. 6 · ¶ 10

The complainant alleged assault and abuse by petitioners Nos. 1–3, and that petitioner No. 4 instigated them.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 2, 6, 8

The police filed a final report, and the petitioners sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2593/2025 for offences under Sections 85, 54, 352 and 127(2), read with Section 3(5), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 2, 6, 8

The petition was brought under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the proceedings should be quashed against petitioners Nos. 1–3 in light of the petitioners’ disputed factual contentions and the allegations in the complaint.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 5–9

ii.2. Whether the vague allegation that petitioner No. 4 instigated the other petitioners was sufficient to sustain the proceedings against her, despite her residence in another district.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 8–10

03Law Applied

The Court considered its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the alleged offences under Sections 85, 54, 352 and 127(2), read with Section 3(5), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

p. 3 · ¶ 2–3

It applied the principle that disputed factual contentions are not to be determined at the quashing stage and may instead be raised before the trial court.

p. 5 · ¶ 9

The Court identified no precedent as the basis for its decision.

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 85 Section 54 Section 352 Section 127 Section 3

04Reasoning

The Court found that the complaint contained allegations of assault and abuse against petitioners Nos. 1–3, while the prosecution also relied on eyewitness statements; the petitioners’ contention that the complainant had not wanted the marriage raised disputed facts unsuitable for determination at this stage.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 5–9

As to petitioner No. 4, the complaint contained only a vague allegation that she instigated the others.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 8–10

Given that she was a relative by marriage residing in another district, the Court held that this allegation alone could not sustain her prosecution.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 8–10

05Holding

The petition was allowed in part.

p. 6 · ¶ 11(a)–(c)

Proceedings in C.C. No. 2593/2025 were quashed only as against petitioner No. 4 (accused No. 4); they were to continue against petitioners Nos. 1–3 (accused Nos. 1–3).

p. 6 · ¶ 11(a)–(c)

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the quashing petition and left all contentions open.

p. 6 · ¶ 11(d)–(e)

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF