- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11119 CRL.P No. 3055 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3055 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NAVEEN V S/O H VISHWESHWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO 475, 2ND FLOOR KCHS LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE 5TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, DODDABASTHI MAIN ROAD, BHUVANESHWARI NAGARA, JNANA BHARATHI, NAGADEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 056 EMAIL: naveenv391@gmail.com MOBILE NO 7975492975. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MRC MANOHAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER JNANABHARATHI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560056 REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560001. 2. SMT CHANDINI K N D/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11119 CRL.P No. 3055 of 2024 R/AT NO 35, 2ND CROSS, AMARAJYOTHI NAGARA, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560040 EMAIL: chandinikn05@gamil.com MOBILE NO 7338475133. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. HARI KRISHNA K A, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.303/2023 DATED 31.08.2023 REGISTERED AT THE JNANA-BHARATHI POLICE STATION AND THE WRITTEN INFORMATION DATED 31.08.2023, LODGED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHO IS ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 323 OF IPC AND 3, 4 OF D.P. ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE IX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner-accused No.1, who is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 323 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that the marriage of petitioner-accused No.1 with respondent No.2 (de facto complainant) was solemnized on 9.6.2022, and at the time of the marriage, the petitioner-accused received dowry in the form of cash and gold ornaments. After the marriage, the de facto complainant resided in the matrimonial home for only 15 days. During her stay, the petitioner-accused did not lead a - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11119 CRL.P No. 3055 of 2024 cordial marital life; instead, he abused her in filthy language, subjected her to both mental and physical cruelty, and demanded money from her parental home. It is further alleged that the mother of the petitioner-accused also subjected the de facto complainant to both physical and mental cruelty by abusing her in filthy language and assaulting her. After leaving the matrimonial home, the de facto complainant began residing in a paying guest accommodation in Rajajinagar, as her father- in-law advised her to stay separately until his son became mentally stable. Thereafter, she continued to live in a PG, and when she requested the petitioner-accused and her parents-in- law to take her back into the matrimonial home, they refused and, on the contrary, vacated the matrimonial house. The father-in-law then called upon the de facto complainant and advised her to remain calm so that the matter could be settled and his son could become mentally stable. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. A perusal of the charge sheet indicates that the marriage of petitioner-accused No.1 with respondent No.2 (de facto complainant) was solemnized on 9.6.2022 and that the de facto complainant stayed in the matrimonial home for only 15 days. The FIR was lodged on 31.08.2025. The charge sheet does not contain any specific overt acts detailing how or in what manner the petitioner-accused subjected her to cruelty. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao, reported in (2008) 15 SCC - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11119 CRL.P No. 3055 of 2024 582, held that not every instance of harassment amounts to “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498-A. For the purposes of Section 498-A, mere harassment does not constitute “cruelty”; it is only when harassment is committed with the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property or similar considerations that it amounts to “cruelty” punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. 6. The allegation of subjecting the de facto complainant to cruelty covers a period of 15 days from the date of the marriage (i.e., from 10.6.2022 onwards). After this period, she left the matrimonial home and lodged the FIR on 31.8.2023. The second respondent also filed a petition for the dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner-accused under Section 13(1)(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which is pending consideration; this petition was filed on 13.10.2023. Except for the recording of the statements of relatives residing in Hassan, no statements of any independent witnesses were recorded to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner- accused. 7. In light of the foregoing, it is evident that the dispute between the parties arises out of marital conflict and carries a criminal texture with an ulterior motive of vengeance. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11119 CRL.P No. 3055 of 2024 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 9. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.34191/2023 on the file of the 9th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Bengaluru, insofar it relates to the petitioner-accused herein is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 109