Karnataka High Court
Smt Girija vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3365
CRL.P No. 13860 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13860 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SMT.GIRIJA
W/O RAMMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1251, 1ST CROSS,
VIGNESH WA SUNKADAKATTE,
BANGALORE-560 091
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.RAJESHWARI M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
BYADRAHALLI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
Digitally signed by BANGALORE-560 001
SANJEEVINI J
KARISHETTY
Location: HIGH
2. SMT. SUNITHA.M
COURT OF W/O UMAMAHESHWAR K.H
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 18, PRASANNA LAYOUT,
MADESHWARANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 091
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, LEARNED HCGP FOR R1
SRI.KRISHNAMOORTHI L., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS),
PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.8026/2024
PENDING ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (CJM),
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE OF BYADARAYAHALLI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3365
CRL.P No. 13860 of 2024
HC-KAR
POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF
IPC, 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this court seeking the following reliefs:
i. Quash the proceedings in CC.No.8026/2024 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore of Byadrayahalli Police for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/w 34 of IPC, 3 and 4 of DP Act.
ii. Grant such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Petitioner-Accused No.4 is at the doors of this court calling in question the proceedings in CC.No.8026/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.
3. Heard Smt. Rajeshwari M, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, Learned HCGP for R-1 and Sri Krishnamoorthi L, learned counsel for R-2. -3-
NC: 2026:KHC:3365 CRL.P No. 13860 of 2024 HC-KAR
4. Facts in brief of the case are as follows: The petitioner is Accused No.4. The 2nd respondent is the complainant, wife of one Uma Maheshwar-Accused No.1, who is not before this court. The marriage between Accused No.1 and the complainant is said to have turned sour. On the relationship turning sour, it transpires that the wife has registered a complaint against several members of the family and the present petitioner which becomes a crime in Crime No.97/2024 for the afore-quoted offences. Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet drawing the petitioner also into the web of proceedings as Accused No.4. The registration of the proceedings, the filing of the charge sheet has driven the petitioner-Accused No.4 to this court in the subject petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Accused No.4 is allegedly said to be a paramour, who cannot be drawn into the web of proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC and any other offence.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that though Section 498A of the IPC cannot be filed -4- NC: 2026:KHC:3365 CRL.P No. 13860 of 2024 HC-KAR against a paramour or even the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, the other offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC are clearly met against the petitioner-accused No.4 and therefore would seek dismissal of the petition in so far as those offences in the least, but would however, contend that the offence under Section 498A is entertainable against a paramour who has been instrumental for the disturbance in the family of the accused No.1 and the complainant.
7. The Learned HCGP would toe the lines of the counsel appearing for the complainant and has narrated facts.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
9. The relationship between the parties are as afore- narrated. The accused no. 4, the present petitioner, is admittedly a stranger who is said to be a paramour of the Accused No.1. The complaint is registered by the complainant, which triggers the registration of the crime. The complaint so registered reads as follows:
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:3365 CRL.P No. 13860 of 2024 HC-KAR "¢£ÁAPÀ: : 10-02-2024 gÀªÀjUÉ, ¥ÉÆðøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï ¨ÁåqÀgÀºÀ½î ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ EAzÀ, ¸ÀĤvÀ JA PÉÆÃA. GªÀiÁªÀĺÉñÀégÀ PÉ.ºÀZï, ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì 33 ªÀµÀð eÁw: MPÀÌ°UÀ, ªÁ¸À £ÀA.18, ¥Àæ¸À£Àß ;ÉÃOmï, ªÀĺÀzÉñÀégÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ, ªÉƨÉÊ;ï ¸ÀA: 6364465610/8867245845 ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: £À£Àß UÀAqÀ GªÀiÁªÀĺÉñÀégÀ PÉ.ºÉZï, CvÉÛ ºÀ¼ÀîªÀÄä, ªÀiÁªÀ ºÉÃAeÉgÀ¥Àà, ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ VjeÁ gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ zÀÆgÀÄ.
F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃgÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ ¹., vÁ¬Ä gÀvÀߪÀÄägÀªÀjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀwñÀPÀĪÀiÁgï JA. JA§ ªÀÄPÀ̽gÀÄvÉÛêÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¢éwÃAiÀÄ ¦AiÀÄĹ ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. 2015£Éà ¸Á°£À°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉvÁ¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀßzÀ°èzÁÝUÀ £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ Hj£À ªÁ¹ ;ÉÃ.²ªÀPÀÌ ªÀÄvÉÛ DPÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ £ÁUÀgÀdÄgÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉ§Æâj£À ºÀwÛgÀ PÉÆÃr¥Á¼ÀåzÀ ªÁ¹ GªÀiÁªÀĺÉñÀégÀgÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ, ºÉtÄÚ £ÉÆÃqÀĪÀ ±Á¸ÀÛçªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. DªÉÄÃ;É £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. JgÀqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ M¦àUÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ £ÀqɬÄvÀÄ, CªÀgÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ GªÀiÁªÀĺÉñÀégÀ PÉ.ºÉZï., DvÀ£À vÁ¬Ä ºÀ¼ÀîªÀÄä, vÀAzÉ ºÉÃAeÉgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀÄ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. D ¢£À £ÀªÀÄä PÀqɬÄAzÀ £À£Àß ¸ÉÆÃzÀgÀªÀiÁªÀ wªÀÄägÁdÄ, £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ, £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä gÀvÀ£ÀߪÀÄä, £À£Àß vÁvÀ vÀªÀÄäAiÀÄåtÚ, £ÁUÀgÁdÄ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀwñÀPÀĪÀiÁgïgÀªÀgÀÄ ºÁdjzÀÄÝ, D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è GªÀiÁªÀĺÉñÀégÀ£ÀÄ PÁgÀÄ ZÁ®PÀ£ÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ ¸ÀéAvÀ PÁgÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÁV ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ZÉ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ ºÉý, ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁV 7 ®PÀë £ÀUÀzÀÄ, ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ¤UÉ MAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊPï, MAzÀÄ a£ÀßzÀ ZÉÊ£Àä MAzÀÄ a£ÀßzÀ GAUÀÄgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀzsÀÄ«UÉ MAzÀÄ a£ÀßzÀ £ÉPÉèøï, MAzÀÄ eÉÆvÉ §¼É, MAzÀÄ ªÀiÁAUÀ®å ZÉÊ£ï, MAzÀÄ eÉÆvÉ N;É dĪÀÄÄQUÀ¼À£ÀÄß (200 UÁæA) PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉýzÀ PÀ;Áåt ªÀÄAl¥ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄPÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ ¨ÉÃrPɬÄlÖgÀÄ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉvÁ¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ M§â¼Éà ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, ZÉ£ÁßVgÀ;ÉAzÀÄ CµÀÆÖ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä M¦àPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄAZÉ £ÀUÀzÀÄ 7 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄÄ GªÀiÁªÀĺÉñÀégÀ¤UÉ PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ.
¢£ÁAPÀ: 18-11-2015gÀAzÀÄ vÀ£Àß vÀAzÉvÁ¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ GªÀiÁªÀĺÉñÀégÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉ§Æâj£À PÉÆÃr¥Á¼ÀåzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ªÉAPÀmÉñÀégÀ PÀ;Áåt ªÀÄAl¥ÀzÀ°è »AzÀÆ ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀĪÁV ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¢£À PÁ®Ä vÉƼÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ¤UÉ ZÉÊ£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ GAUÀÄgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉAiÀÄ°è M¦àzÀAvÉ J;Áè MqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¢£À £À£Àß vÀAzÉvÁ¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÁQzÀÝgÀÄ. F ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉvÁ¬ÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 3 jAzÀ 4 ®PÀë RZÀÄð ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ. ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄÄ «WÉßñÀégÀ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è JgÀqÀÄ ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sÉÆÃUÀåPÉÌ ºÁQ¹PÉÆlÖgÀÄ, DzÀgÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ C°èUÉ EgÀ®Ä M¥ÀàzÉà £ÀªÀÄä vÀªÀgÀĪÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ -6- NC: 2026:KHC:3365 CRL.P No. 13860 of 2024 HC-KAR MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀð PÁ® ªÁ¸À«zÉݪÀÅ. DªÉÄÃ;É HjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ 15 ¢£ÀUÀ½UÉƪÉÄä §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ, DzÀgÉ F ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß CvÉÛªÀiÁªÀ£ÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä¥Àà ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ PÉÆqÀ°®è, £ÀªÀÄUÉ ®PÁëAvÀgÀ zÀÄqÀÄØ PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀUÀ¼ÀÄ §A¢zÉݪÀÅ. DzÀgÉ ºÉÆÃV ºÉÆÃV ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¨É¼À¹ ºÁ¼ÁzɪÀÅ JAzÀÄ ZÀÄZÀÄÑ ªÀiÁvÀÄUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄåwÛzÀÝgÀÄ, CqÀÄUÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è, ¥ÁvÉæ vÉƼÉAiÀÄĪÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è, PÁgÀt ºÀÄqÀÄQ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄåªÀÅzÀÄ, ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. F «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ºÉýzÀgÉ, CªÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÀAvÉ PÉýPÉÆAqÀÄ ©zÀÄÝ, E;ÁèAzÀgÉ K£ÁzÀgÀÆ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä JAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀ£ÀÄ. EzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄ£À£ÉÆAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ DvÀäºÀvÉåUÉ ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁrzÉÝ. DªÉÄÃ;É £À£Àß vÀAzÉvÁ¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÀiÁr §Ä¢ÞªÁzÀ ºÉýzÀÝgÀÄ. DUÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆr ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ZÉ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀÝ. DUÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £Á®ÄÌ ®PÀë ºÀt ¤Ãr «WÉßñÀégÀ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sÉÆÃUÀåPÉÌ ºÁQ¹PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸À«zÉÝ. F ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀPÉÌ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀAzÀĺÁPÀÄwÛgÀ°®è, ºÀĵÁj®è¢zÀÝgÉ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀ°®è, ¥Àæw¢£À PÀÄrzÀħAzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä¥Àà ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁV ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÀgÀĪÀAvÉ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ, ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄåwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ. EzÀ®èzÉà DUÁUÉÎ £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀiÁªÀ£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ Hj¤AzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉUÉ ¨ÉÃrPÉAiÉÆrØ, »A¸É QgÀÄPÀļÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. DªÉÄÃ;É ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ ¸ÀÆÌ;ïUÉ ºÀwÛgÀªÁUÀ;ÉAzÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄÄ D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß SÁ° ªÀiÁr¹, £Á®ÄÌ ®PÀëzÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ ªÀÄvÉÛ JgÀqÀÄ ®PÀë ¸ÉÃj¹ MlÄÖ ®PÀÌ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ½UÉ «WÉßñÀégÀ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ ªÀÄjAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀ£À ¸ÀÆÌ;ï ºÀwÛgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sÉÆÃUÀåPÉÌ ºÁQ¹PÉÆlÖgÀÄ, F ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀªÉÄÃ;É £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÀAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ VjeÁ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ C£ÉÊwPÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ«lÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ PÉýzÀgÉ ¥Àæw¢£À ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄåªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ.
¢£ÁAPÀ: 21-11-2023gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß CvÉÛ ºÀ¼ÀîªÀÄä£ÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢zÀÄÝ, DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ ºÉAUÀ¸ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀªÀ£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÁV, DvÀ¤UÉ §Ä¢Þ ºÉüÀĪÀAvÉ PÉýzÉ, CzÀPÉÌ vÁ¬Ä, ªÀÄUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ VjeÁgÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ, dÄlÄÖ »rzÀÄ J¼ÉzÁr, ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁQ, EzÉÆAzÀÄ ¸À® F PÀqÉ ¤£Àß vÀ;É PÀAqÉæ E;Éè ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ HvÀĺÁPÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀgÀÄ, DªÉÄÃ;É £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼ÉÆA¢UÉ §AzÀÄ vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À«gÀÄvÁÛ£É.
EzÁzÀ ªÉÄÃ;É £À£Àß vÀAzÉvÁ¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ »jAiÀÄgÀÄ ¸ÉÃj £ÁåAiÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÆ DzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ £ÀqɸÀ°®è. EAzÀ;Áè £Á¼É ¸ÀjºÉÆÃUÀ§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ¸ÀĪÀÄä¤zÉÝ, DzÀgÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À £ÀqÀĪÀ½PÉAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà §zÀ;ÁªÀuÉAiÀiÁUÀzÉà ºÉüÀzÉà PÉüÀzÉà ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß SÁ°ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÀÛ£É. FUÀ vÀqÀªÁV zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁV £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀt, a£ÀßzÀ MqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ, ªÀÄvÉÛ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉUÉ ¨ÉÃrPÉAiÉÆrØ zÉÊ»PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸É QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr, PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjUÉ ºÁQgÀĪÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ GªÀiÁªÀĺÉñÀégÀ PÉ.ºÉZï., CvÉÛ ºÀ¼ÀîªÀÄä, ªÀiÁªÀ ºÉÃAeÉgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ VjeÁgÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ, vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹
¸À»/-
(¸ÀĤÃvÀ JA.)
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:3365
CRL.P No. 13860 of 2024
HC-KAR
¢£ÁAPÀ: 10.02.2024gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ 15.30 UÀAmÉUÉ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀ¢AzÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ oÁuÁ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.97/2024 u/s 498 (J), 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 ¹¦¹ CPC and 3, 4 of D.P. Act of ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
(Emphasis added)
10. In the entire complaint, the narration against the petitioner is that, the complainants parents shifted the complainant and the accused No.1 - husband, to a house owned by the petitioner in order to bring their children closer to their school. The accused No.1 - husband develops an illicit relationship with the present petitioner. When the complainant informs her mother-in-law/accused No.2 about the said illicit affair, she is abused by her mother-in-law/accused No.2, leading to the complaint being filed. Upon registration of the crime the petitioner comes to be arraigned as accused No.4. The police after investigation file the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column number 17 reads as follows:
"F zÉÆõÀgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ CAPÀt ¸ÀASÉå: 12gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ DgÉÆæ 1jAzÀ 3 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë 2 gÀªÀjUÉ ¨ÉÃrPÉAiÀÄÆr ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉUÀV gÀÆ 7/- ®PÀë £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ¤UÉ MAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊPï, MAzÀÄ a£ÀßzÀ ZÉÊ£ï, MAzÀÄ eÉÆvÉ N;É dĪÀÄÄQ (200 UÁæA) ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉUÁV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ DgÉÆæ 1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë- 1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 18-11-2015 gÀAzÀÄ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ f;Éè ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ºÉ§ÆâgÀÄ ºÉÆç½, PÉÆÃr¥Á¼ÀåzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ªÉAPÀmÉñÀégÀ PÀ;Áåt ªÀÄAl¥ÀzÀ°è »AzÀÆ ¸ÀªÀÄÄzÁAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¸ÀÄAPÀzÀPÀmÉÖAiÀÄ°è gÀÆ 2/- ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sÉÆÃUÀåPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ DgÉÆæ MAzÀÄgÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ D -8- NC: 2026:KHC:3365 CRL.P No. 13860 of 2024 HC-KAR ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁQë MAzÀÄgÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ F ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆæ 1 jAzÀ 3 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë 1 gÉÆA¢UÉ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä C¥Àà£À ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ PÉÆqÀ°®è £À£ÀUÉ ®PÁëAvÀgÀ zÀÄqÀÄØ PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀUÀ¼ÀÄ §A¢zÀݪÀÅ, DzÀgÉ ºÉÆÃV ºÉÆÃV ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¨É¼É¹ ºÁ¼ÁzɪÀÅ JAzÀÄ ZÀÄZÀÄÑ ªÀiÁvÀÄUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄåwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. CrUÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ¥ÁvÉæ vÉƼÉAiÀÄĪÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è PÁgÀt ºÀÄqÀÄQ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄåªÀÅzÀÄ, ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. F «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß DPÉAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÀAvÉ PÉýPÉÆAqÀÄ ©¢ÝgÀÄ E®èªÁzÀgÉ K£ÁzÀgÀÆ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä JAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPɺÁQzÀÄÝ, »jAiÀÄgÉ®è £ÁåAiÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÀiÁr ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªÀjUÉ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ, DªÉÄÃ;É ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß SÁ° ªÀiÁr¹ ¸ÁQë- 2 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¨ÁåqÀgÀ½î ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÉ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢ÝUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ «WÉßñÀégÀ£ÀUÀgÀ, ªÀÄÄ£ÉñÀégÀ £ÀUÀgÀ 1£Éà CqÀØgÀ¸ÉÛ, £ÀA§gï 1215 £Éà ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ gÀÆ 6/- ®PÀë PÉÆlÄÖ ¨sÉÆÃUÀåPÉÌ PÉÆr¹zÀÄÝ D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ;Éèà ªÁ¸À«zÀÝ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ®Æè ¸ÀºÀ DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ »A¸É QgÀÄPÀļÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21-11-2023gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆæ-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢zÀÄÝ DUÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæ-2 gÀªÀjUÉ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ ºÉAUÀ¹£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ElÄÖPÉÆArzÁÝV DvÀ¤UÉ §Ä¢Þ ºÉüÀĪÀAvÉ PÉýzÀÝPÉÌ DgÉÆæ-1, 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ £ÉÆêÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁr, ¸ÀƼɪÀÄÄAqÉ EvÁå¢ CªÁåZÀÒ ±À§ÞUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ »rzÀÄ J¼ÉzÀr ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁQ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ¸À® F PÀqÉ ¤£Àß vÀPÉ PÀAqÀgÉ E;Éè ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ºÀÆvÀĺÁPÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁQgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß vÀ¤SÉ PÁ®zÀ°è ¸ÀAUÀ滹 ¸ÁPÁëzsÀgÀUÀ½AzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ F zÉÆõÀgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À°è¹zÉ."
11. If the complaint and the charge sheet are read in tandem, what would unmistakably emerge is that the petitioner cannot be drawn into the web of crime, she being the alleged paramour and not a member of the family. It is settled principle of law, a total stranger, a neighbour or a paramour cannot be drawn into the web of crime for offences punishable under Section 498A in particular. The Apex Court in the case of DECHAMMA I.M. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, observes that a woman with whom a man has romantic relations outside of 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3853 -9- NC: 2026:KHC:3365 CRL.P No. 13860 of 2024 HC-KAR marriage would not be a "relative of the husband" under Section 498A of the IPC. The Apex Court holds as follows:
"8. This Court, in the case of U. Suvetha (supra), had an occasion to consider a question as to whether the girlfriend or a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage would be a "relative of the husband" for the purposes of prosecution under Section 498A of IPC.
9. This Court, after considering the earlier judgments of this Court and the dictionary meaning of a relative, observed thus:--
"18. By no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend or even a 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 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. In so far as the other offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC are concerned, a perusal of the complaint and charge sheet would indicate that no prima facie case against the petitioner is made out by the prosecution. The
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3365 CRL.P No. 13860 of 2024 HC-KAR ingredients of the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC are found in Section 503. Section 503 of the IPC reads as follows:
"503. Criminal intimidation.--Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to resist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation."
13. The interpretation of Section 503 of the IPC need not detain this Court for longer or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of MOHAMMED WAJID & ANOTHER v. STATE OF UP & OTHERS2 while considering and elucidating upon what would become an offence under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC, observes as follows:
".... .... .... 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 - 11 - NC: 2026:KHC:3365 CRL.P No. 13860 of 2024 HC-KAR Sections 503, 504 and 506 IPC
25. Chapter XXII IPC relates to criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance. Section 503 reads thus:
"503. Criminal intimidation.--Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation."
26. Section 504 reads thus:
"504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.--Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
27. Section 506 reads thus:
"506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--
Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3365 CRL.P No. 13860 of 2024 HC-KAR imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
28. An offence under Section 503 has the following essentials:
(1) Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or
(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
(2) The threat must be with intent;
(i) to cause alarm to that person; or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or
(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
29. Section 504 IPC contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive language is used intentionally and is of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of events lead the person insulted to break the peace or to commit an offence under the law, the case is not taken away from the purview of the section merely because the insulted person did not actually break the peace or commit any offence having exercised self-control or having been subjected to abject terror by the offender.
30. In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504 IPC, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances,
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3365 CRL.P No. 13860 of 2024 HC-KAR would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant.
31. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504 IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant. In King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai [King Emperor v. ChunnibhaiDayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78] , a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:
"To constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the other party to lose his temper and say or do something violent. Public peace can be broken by angry words as well as deeds."
(emphasis supplied)
32. A bare perusal of Section 506 IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant.
33. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the nature of the allegations
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3365 CRL.P No. 13860 of 2024 HC-KAR levelled in the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not under Section 504 IPC. The allegations with respect to the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC can also be looked at from a different perspective. In the FIR, all that the first informant has stated is that abusive language was used by the accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the FIR.
34. One of the essential elements, as discussed above, constituting an offence under Section 504 IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present."
(Emphasis supplied) None of the ingredients of Sections 503, 504 and 506 of the IPC as stated in the afore-quoted judgment are found either in the complaint or in the charge sheet.
14. What remains is offence under Section 323 of IPC for which there is no wound certificate that would indicate that the petitioner has assaulted the complainant. In the absence of all these Sections, a paramour is sought to be drawn into the web of proceedings under the offence punishable under Section
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3365 CRL.P No. 13860 of 2024 HC-KAR 498A, which is essentially a dispute between the family members, the petition deserves to succeed.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.8026/2024 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore stand quashed qua the petitioner.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26