- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19608 CRL.P No. 9987 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9987 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. PREETHI D.P. D/O SHANMUKAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT PUTTAIAH COMPLEX, KUDIGE VILLAGE, KUSHALNAGAR TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571 234. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY KUSHALNAGAR POLICE STATION KODAGU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SMT. HEMALATHA P.R. W/O SHIVA KUMARA H.P. AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.327, KUVEMPU LAYOUT MULLUSOGE VILLAGE, KUSHALANAGARA, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R.1; SMT. LEELA P. DEVADIGE, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.) Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19608 CRL.P No. 9987 of 2024 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.39/2022 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT KUSHALNAGAR, KODAGU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 108, 109, 114, 498A, 323, 504, 506 AND 34 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner-accused No.2 in C.C.No.39/2022 arising out of PCR No.303/2021 seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushalnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 109, 114, 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the second respondent - complainant has filed a private complaint in PCR No.303/2021 against her husband Sri.Shivakumar H.P. and the petitioner herein inter alia contending that her husband the aforesaid accused No.1-Shivakumar H.P. was the boy friend of the petitioner and both the petitioner and Shivakumar H.P. committed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19608 CRL.P No. 9987 of 2024 the alleged offence against respondent No.2-complainant. The aforesaid private complaint in PCR No.303/2021 having been referred to the Police Authorities for investigation on 06.09.2021 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, the trial Court registered an FIR in Crime No.50/2021 and filed a charge sheet which is currently pending in C.C.No.39/2022 before the trial Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. 4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the material on record in order to point out that the alleged offences primarily involving Section 498A of IPC and ancillary offences are not maintainable as against the petitioner, who is not the relative of the husband of respondent No.2 as contemplated under Section 498-A of IPC. In this context, he places reliance upon the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dechamma I.M. @ Dechamma Koushik Vs. the State of Karnataka and Another in SLP (Crl.) No.3421/2022 decided on 04.12.2024 in order to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19608 CRL.P No. 9987 of 2024 contend that the petitioner being an alleged girl friend of the husband of respondent No.2 who was arrayed as accused No.2 cannot be dragged into the impugned proceedings, consequently, the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserve to be quashed. 5. In Dechamma's case supra, the Apex Court held as under:- "Leave granted. 2. Though Respondent No. 2 has been duly served with notice, she has chosen not to appear. 3. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, thereby dismissing the criminal petition filed by the present appellant for quashing the proceedings in Crime No. 339 of 2019 on the file of Court of Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupete, Chamarajnagar, which concubine in an etymological sense be a "relative". The word "relative" brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise." 10. It could thus be seen that this Court has, in unequivocal terms, held that a girlfriend or even a woman with whom a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19608 CRL.P No. 9987 of 2024 man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage could not be construed to be a relative. 11. Apart from that for bringing a case under Section 498A of IPC, the material placed on record should show that the ill treatment was meted out by the husband or a relative, which is connected with non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. 12. Taking the allegations at their face value in the FIR or even in the entire material placed in the charge-sheet, it will show that there is no averment or material to show that the appellant was in any way concerned with causing harassment to respondent No. 2 on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. 13. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would be nothing else but an abuse of process of law. We find that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 14. In the result, we pass the following order: (i) The appeal is accordingly allowed; (li) The judgment and order of the High Court dated 12th April 2021 is quashed and set aside; and (ili) The proceedings in Crime No. 339 of 2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupete for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 109 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are quashed and set aside qua the appellant herein. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19608 CRL.P No. 9987 of 2024 14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the instant case, on perusal of the material on record and has rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, all the allegations made by respondent No.2 - complainant primarily involve upon alleged offence under Section 498A involving her husband - accused No.1 and the petitioner not being a relative or family member of accused No.1 clearly cannot be dragged into or arrayed as an accused person and consequently, in the light of the dictum in Dechamma's case supra, I am of the view that continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law and the same deserve to be quashed. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19608 CRL.P No. 9987 of 2024 (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.39/2022, arising out of PCR No.303/2021 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushalnagar, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE VMB List No.: 3 Sl No.: 13