Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash FIR Over Wife’s Alleged Caste Abuse, Assault By Husband And In-Laws; SC/ST Act Applicability Needs Probe

The complainant alleged that she and petitioner No. 1 had been married for about seven years and lived together for approximately five years.

After she gave birth to their child, she said her husband and his family failed to visit or respond to her.

She further alleged that, on 5 November 2020, when she went to their house, the petitioners abused and assaulted her, pulled her by the hair, pushed her out, and made caste-related remarks.

A complaint led to registration of Crime No. 119/2020 for offences under Sections 498A, 504 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, contending, among other things, that the allegations were false and did not attract the special enactment.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, but the Court, when considering quashing, must examine the complaint’s contents and should not prematurely obstruct an investigation into specific allegations.

The offences invoked included Sections 498A, 504 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court considered *Hitesh Verma* in relation to the petitioners’ argument that an incident within a private dwelling would not attract the SC/ST Act, but held that the specific caste-related allegations required investigation before their legal sufficiency could be determined.

It also relied on *Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat*, (2018) 3 SCC 104, for the principle that the High Court should not come in the way of an investigation and that the investigating officer must unearth the truth.

The complaint identified a specific incident and alleged that the petitioners assaulted the complainant, pulled her by the hair, pushed her from the house, and abused her by reference to caste.

The Court held that whether the incident occurred as alleged, whether it took place within the house, and whether the allegations attracted the SC/ST Act or other offences were matters for investigation, not determination at the FIR-quashing stage.

The Court therefore declined to assess the truth or ultimate legal sufficiency of the allegations and left those questions to the investigating officer.

It left the investigating officer to investigate the alleged incident and determine whether the facts disclosed offences under the SC/ST Act or other applicable provisions.