- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49240 CRL.P No. 14017 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14017 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SHIVAKUMAR H.P. S/O. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT KUVEMPU LAYOUT, MULLSOGE, KUSHALNAGAR TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 234 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY KUSHALNAGAR POLICE STATION KODAGU DISTRICT REP. 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 52 YEARS R/AT NO. 327, KUVEMPU BADAVANE, MULLUSOGE VILLAGE, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49240 CRL.P No. 14017 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.39/2022 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT KUSHALNAGAR, KODAGU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 108, 109, 114, 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC. 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 seeks the following reliefs: "WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this honourable Court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.NO.39/2022 on the file of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Kushalnagar, Kodagu district for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 109, 114, 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the first respondent and perused the material on record. The respondent No.2 having been served with notice of this petition has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49240 CRL.P No. 14017 of 2025 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is the husband of the second respondent, their marriage having been solemnized on 17.08.1993 and two daughters have been born from out of the wedlock. On 30.08.2021, the second respondent wife filed a complaint in PCR No. 303/2021 against the petitioner and one Preethi DP for alleged offences. The learned Magistrate referred the case for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 06.09.2021 pursuant to which the first respondent police conducted investigation and filed the impugned charge sheet against the petitioner and the aforesaid Preethi DP. 4. A perusal of the material on record will also indicate that the aforesaid Preethi DP who was arraigned as accused No.2 approached this Court in Crl.P. No.9987/2024 which was allowed and disposed of by this Court vide final order dated 09.06.2025 which reads as under: "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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49240 CRL.P No. 14017 of 2025 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 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49240 CRL.P No. 14017 of 2025 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 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49240 CRL.P No. 14017 of 2025 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 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49240 CRL.P No. 14017 of 2025 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. 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49240 CRL.P No. 14017 of 2025 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. (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." 5. In addition thereto, the petitioner and respondent No.2 having been married in the year 1993 for more than 32 years as on today, matrimonial proceedings are pending between the parties. In this circumstance, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhara Lakshmi Narayan vs. The State of Telengana reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3682 has held as under: 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent State submitted that on a perusal of the FIR, it would reveal that a prima facie case has been made out against the appellants. It was submitted that, as per the FIR, Respondent 2 was harassed both physically and mentally - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49240 CRL.P No. 14017 of 2025 for want of additional dowry and that Appellant 1 used to come home in a drunken state and used to have an illicit affair with one Mounika. The learned counsel for the respondent State submitted that the father of Respondent 2 was examined as LW 3 who stated in the examination that at the time of marriage, he gave Rs 10 lakhs and 10 tolas of gold as dowry. It was further submitted that after the marriage, Appellant 1 used to harass and abuse Respondent 2 and Appellants 2 to 6 used to provoke and instigate Appellant 1. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondent State argued that the High Court, vide the impugned order [Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 3561] , was justified in declining to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants herein arising out of FIR No. 82 of 2022 dated 1-2-2022 and prayed for the dismissal of the present appeal as well. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the material on record, the only question that arises for our consideration is whether FIR No. 82 of 2022, dated 1-2-2022, lodged against the appellants herein should be quashed. 12. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] (“Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] ”), this Court formulated the parameters under which the powers under Section 482CrPC could be exercised. While it is not necessary to revisit all the parameters, a few that are - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49240 CRL.P No. 14017 of 2025 relevant to the present case may be set out as under : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. *** (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49240 CRL.P No. 14017 of 2025 on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 6. The Apex Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the practice of converting matrimonial disputes into criminal proceedings have been severely deprecated and as such, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner would amount abuse of process of law warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 7. It is also pertinent to note that a perusal of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet material, statement of witnesses, documents will indicate that except general, omnibus, vague allegations, there is no other material to incriminate the petitioner for the alleged offences which is yet another circumstance which would also vitiate the impugned proceedings. ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.39/2022 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC at - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49240 CRL.P No. 14017 of 2025 Kushalnagar, Kodagu district for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 109, 114, 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC are quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3