- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8400 CRL.P No. 10399 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10399 OF 2022 BETWEEN: ROOPA C/O LATE. SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS C/O GOPALAPPA NAYAKARU 4TH CROSS, BYATARAYANAPURA BANGALORE - 560 092 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANUMESH H.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AMRUTHAHALLY PS REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001 2. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE MUNISHWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.239, 1ST CROSS MAHALINGESHWAR LAYOUT ADUGODI, BANGALORE-560030 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. P. NISHAN UNNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF XLV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH- 46) THEREBY ISSUING SUMMONS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306, 498A, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING IN THE TRIAL COURT AND Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8400 CRL.P No. 10399 of 2022 REGISTRATION OF S.C.NO.1673/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING THEREON. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being accused No.3 in SC.No.1673/2022 pending on the file of the learned XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-46), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 2. Heard Sri Hanumesh H.N., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rangaswamy R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State and Sri P. Nishan Unni, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8400 CRL.P No. 10399 of 2022 "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her?" My answer to the above point is 'Party in the Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 4. Respondent No.2 being the informant filed the first information with Amruthahalli Police Station against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC. The FIR came to be registered in Crime No.112/2018 at Amruthahalli Police Station and the investigation was undertaken. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 5. It is the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner being accused No.3 was having illicit relationship with accused No.1 who is the husband of the deceased. Since accused No.1 was having such relationship with accused No.3, he used to harass and treat the deceased with cruelty and she was not being provided with basic necessities. There was also - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8400 CRL.P No. 10399 of 2022 demand for Rs.20,00,000/-. It is stated that accused No.2 is the sister of accused No.1. Thus, accused Nos.1 to 3 treated the deceased with cruelty, gave life threat and abetted commission of suicide. As a result of which, she committed suicide by hanging. Upon which, the mother of the deceased filed the first information. 6. As per the final report, the deceased has left behind a 'Death Note'. In the Death Note, there is reference to accused Nos.1 to 3. It is specifically stated by the deceased that accused No.3 i.e. petitioner herein was in illicit relationship with accused No.1, which made the other accused to ill-treat the deceased. She has specifically stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 are responsible for her death. It is stated that this Death Note which runs into few pages was referred for Handwriting Expert. As per FSL report issued by the Deputy Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Madiwala Bengaluru, questioned writing and the admitted writings were written by one and the same person. Thus, there are prima facie materials to constitute the offence under Sections 306 and 506 of IPC against the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8400 CRL.P No. 10399 of 2022 7. In the FIR, Section 498-A of IPC is also invoked, generally against all the accused. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the relative of accused No.1. Under such circumstances, this petitioner cannot be roped in for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dechamma I.M. alias Dechamma Koushik V/s State of Karnataka and another1, considered a case where a girlfriend of the husband was alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and the Court held that by no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend or even a concubine in any sense be a "relative" of the husband to attract Section 498A of IPC. Under such circumstances, the criminal prosecution for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC is liable to be quashed against the petitioner. However, she is liable for prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 9. Accordingly, I answer the above point 'partly in the affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3853 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8400 CRL.P No. 10399 of 2022 ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The petition filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 498-A is allowed. (iii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in SC No.1673/2022 on the file of the learned XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore (CCH No.46), registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed. (iv) The petition filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC is rejected. In view of disposal of main petition, pending I.A.No.1/2022 also stands disposed off. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS