- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1545 CRL.P No. 12813 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12813 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: SMT SIDDAGANGA K W/O NAVEENKUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, R/AT 8TH CROSS, SANJEEVININAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 024. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M B CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, DANDINASHIVARA POLICE STATION, TURUVEKERE CIRCLE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT ANNEX BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. SMT ASHWINI W/O SRINIVAS, AGED 22 YEARS, R/O K KOPPA, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572 215. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1 R-2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN S.C.NO.10032/2023 (CR.NO.16/2023) ON THE FILE OF THE DANDINISHIVARA P.S., TURUVEKERE CIRCLE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 313, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE TIPTUR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1545 CRL.P No. 12813 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners-accused No.3 seeks quashing of the charge sheet and further proceedings in S.C.No.10032/2023 arising out of Crime No.16/2023 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Tiptur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 313 and 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short “the D.P. Act”) and for other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 3. Though respondent No.2 is served with notice, he has not appeared before the Court and has chosen to remain unrepresented. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 is the wife of one Srinivas, who is none other than the brother of the petitioner herein. On 16.03.2022, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against her husband, Srinivas – accused - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1545 CRL.P No. 12813 of 2023 No.1, his mother, Honnamma – accused No.2 and the petitioner – accused No.3 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 313 and 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. In pursuance of the same, respondent No.1 registered an FIR in Crime No.16/2023 and after investigation, the impugned charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and other accused persons for the alleged offences. 5. In this context, a perusal of the impugned complaint will indicate that except making vague, bald, general, sweeping and omnibus allegations as against the petitioner, who was the married sister of Srinivas, husband of respondent No.2, no specific allegations nor material particulars or details are forthcoming in the impugned complaint so as to incriminate the petitioner for the alleged offences. So also, even according to the complainant and the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation, the petitioner being married was residing elsewhere and was not residing along with respondent No.2 or her husband and his mother. In fact, the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bangalore and was not present in the residence/house of her brother and mother, accused Nos.1 and 2, which was at Tiptur at the time of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1545 CRL.P No. 12813 of 2023 commission of the alleged offences. It is also pertinent to note that in the entire complaint and the statement of witnesses, necessary ingredients constituting the aforesaid offences alleged as against the petitioner are not forthcoming as borne out from the material on record. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in several judgments have categorically held that the family members and relatives of husband cannot be dragged into proceedings under Section 498-A IPC without necessary material particulars and details regarding their involvement in the offences including the following judgments. (i) Kahkashan Kousar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar - (2022) 1 SCR 558 (ii) Digambar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another – (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3836 (iii) Geddam Jhansi Vs. the State of Telangana and another – 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263 7. In the instant case, the petitioner being the married sister of the husband of respondent No.2 and residing elsewhere - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1545 CRL.P No. 12813 of 2023 prior to the alleged offences cannot be held to have committed the same and as such, the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserves to be quashed. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned proceedings in S.C.No.10032/2023 (arising out of Crime No.17/2023 of respondent No.1- Police), pending on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Tiptur, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS/BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12