Karnataka High Court
Dr Lokesh B H vs State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE R
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8134 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)
/ 528(BNSS)-)
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9412 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC)
/ 528(BNSS)-)
IN CRL.P.NO.8134/2024
BETWEEN
1. DR LOKESH B H
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O LATE HALAPPA.B.E,
OCCUPATION CARDIOLOGIST AT
NANJAPPA LIFE CARE,
5619, GADIKOPPA, SAGAR ROAD,
SHIVAMOGGA-577205.
RESIDING AT POST OFFICE BUILDING,
OPP. TO IDGS COLLEGE,
K.M.ROAD, JYOTHINAGAR,
Digitally signed CHIKKAMANGALURU-577102.
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH 2. SMT. SHANTHADEVI
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
W/O LATE HALAPPA,
RESIDING AT POST OFFICE BUILDING,
OPP. TO IDGS COLLEGE,
K.M.ROAD, JYOTHINAGAR,
CHIKKAMANGALURU-577102.
3. SMT. CHANDRIKA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
W/O LATE NIRANJAN,
RESIDING AT NO.38,
ANNAPOORNESHWARI LAYOUT,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
ULLAL MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560060.
4. DARSHAN,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O LATE NIRANJAN,
RESIDING AT NO.38,
ANNAPOORNESHWARI LAYOUT,
ULLAL MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560060.
.... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H R., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU-560001.
2. SMT. THEERTHA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA,
RESIDING AT NO.62,
PUNARVASU, 2ND CROSS,
MARUTHI LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560040.
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR. M.B., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.28129/2023 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
UNDER SECTION 498A, 504, 506, 307, 494 READ WITH SECTION
149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE LEARNED XXIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER RELIEF'S AS
DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN CRL.P.NO.9412/2021
BETWEEN
DR LOKESH B H
S/O LATE HALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCCUPATION CARDIOLOGIST AT
NANJAPPA LIFE CARE
5619, GADIKOPPA, SAGAR ROAD,
SHIVAMOGGA 577205
RESIDING AT
POST OFFICE BUILDING,
OPP IDSG COLLEGE, K M ROAD,
JYOTHINAGAR,
CHIKKAMANGALURU 577102
.... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.N. RADHA KRISHNA., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY TUNGANAGAR POLICE,
SHIVAMOGGA,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT
BANGALORE 560001
2. SMT THEERTHA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA,
R/AT NO 62, PUNARVARSU,
2ND CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU 560040
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. UDAYA PRAKASH MULIYA., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.630/2019 FOR THE OFEFNCE P/U/S 498A OF IPC, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn) AND
JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND
HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.10.2025, THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. Petitioners in Criminal Petition 8134/2024 are before
this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Quash the entire Criminal Proceedings initiated
against the Petitioner in C.C.No.28129/2023 for the
alleged offences under Section 498A, 504, 506, 307,
494 read with section 149 of IPC and Section 3 and 4
of DP Act pending on the file of the Learned XXIV
Additional Chief Metropolitian Magistrate, Bengaluru,
b. Pass such other relief's as deems fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice.
2. Petitioner in Criminal Petition 9142/2021 is before
this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Quash the proceedings in C.C.No.630/2019 for the
offence punishable under Section 498(A) IPC,
pending on the file of the learned III Additional Civil
Judge, (Jr. Divn) and JMFC Court at Shivamogga
District, in the interest of justice.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
FACTS IN CRL. P. 8134/2024:
3. Respondent No.2, de facto complainant, had filed a
complaint on 23-08-2016 alleging that her marriage
was solemnised with the Petitioner on 17-10-2010 as
per Hindu customs and rituals, after which they were
both living together in Bengaluru and thereafter,
since her husband had job/work at Nanjappa Life
Care Hospital at Shivamogga, they had shifted to
Sharavati Nagar, Shivamogga, and started residing
in the house of one Jacob DeCosta.
4. In the month of July 2016, when she went for
treatment to her parents' house at Bangalore and
when she returned on 18-08-2016, to her surprise,
she found the house had been vacated and the
Petitioner and his family members had taken all the
properties by colluding with the owner of the house.
Hence, she lodged a complaint against the Petitioner
before the Respondent No. 1 Police, based on which
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
Crime No. 383 of 2016 was registered for offences
under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 sought permission
from the Learned Magistrate to include Section 143,
114, 498 AA, read with Section 149 of the IPC, as
also to add four other persons as Accused No. 2 to 5.
Investigation having been completed, a final report
in CC No. 690 of 2019 has been filed only against the
Petitioner and the other added accused have not
been charge-sheeted. The Petitioner is challenging
the cognisance taken in the said proceedings.
FACTS IN CRL. P. No.8134/2024:
6. In this matter, on 07.09.2016, the statement of the
very same complainant as in Criminal Petition No.
9412/2021 - Respondent No.2 has been recorded by
the Head Constable in the absence of the Casualty
Medical Officer, Government KC General hospital,
Malleshwaram, Bengaluru stating that on 17.09.2010
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
Respondent No.2 had married Petitioner No.1 and at
the time of marriage, Respondent No. 2's family had
given 1 kg gold, 3 kg silver and 10 lakh cash to the
petitioners and thereafter, Petitioner No.1 and his
family harassed Respondent No.2 complainant
mentally and physically with a further demand of
dowry. Petitioner No.1 had not disclosed his earlier
marriage. On 05.09.2016, at about 10 pm, the
Petitioners and other accused quarrelled with the
complainant when the complainant questioned the
marriage of Petitioner No. 1 and in this context
Petitioners are alleged to have threatened the life of
Respondent No.2 and other family members holding
the respondent No.2, Petitioner No. 1 poured
kerosene on the complainant and set her ablaze with
an intention to cause a death. During that time, two
unknown persons saved the complainant and
informed the police. The Respondent No.2 sustained
left leg burn injuries. Thereafter, when her mother
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
and brother came to the house, they shifted her to
the KC General Hospital for treatment when the
above statement was recorded. On the basis of the
said statement, FIR in crime No. 450 of 2016, for
offences under section 498A, 307, read with 34 of
the IPC, and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act 1961, were registered.
7. Upon recording a further statement of the
Respondent No. 2 Complainant, offences under
section 494, 504 and 506 were added and the
Charge sheet having been filed, cognisance having
been taken, the matter is pending in CC No. 28129
of 2023, which is challenged in the present
proceedings.
8. The submission of Sri.A.N.Radhakrishna, learned
counsel for the petitioners in both the matters, is
that,
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
8.1. Respondent No.2 is not the legally wedded wife
of Petitioner No. 1, inasmuch as Petitioner No.1
has already been married; there could be no
valid second marriage in favour of Respondent
No. 2. His submission is that Petitioner is
married to one Smt. Naveena has a daughter
named Shravani. The said marriage being
earlier in point of time than that of Respondent
No.2, the question of making an allegation
regarding offences under Section 498A would
not arise. At most, the relationship between
Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No. 2 could be
a live-in relationship. The living together would
not attract the offence of Section 498A, which
can only be attracted in a valid and legal
marital relationship.
8.2. The statement recorded by the Head Constable
in the KC General Hospital has not been so
recorded in the presence of the duty doctor and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
as such, the statement would not be admissible
in evidence. This he submits, would be so for
the reason that if at all Respondent No. 2 had
expired, the said statement would have been
treated as a dying declaration and as such, the
said statement would have to comply with the
applicable requirement.
8.3. A medico-legal case has not been registered in
a proper manner, and as such, the matter could
not have been proceeded with.
8.4. Respondent No.2 is guilty of filing false
complaints. There are several complaints which
have been filed by Respondent No. 2, a
complaint on 1-9-2013 had been filed before
the Women's Police Station Shimoga, on 15-2-
2014 before DYSP, Shimoga, 18-3-2014 before
the Women's Police Station Shimoga, on 3-4-
2014 again before the Women's Police Station,
Shimoga, on 27-10-2014 before the Karnataka
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
State Women's Commission at Bengaluru, on
16-12-2014 before the Karnataka State
Women's Commission at Bengaluru, on 7-01-
2015, before the Karnataka State Women's
Commission at Bengaluru, on 12-03-2015
before Karnataka State Women's Commission,
on 10.04.2015 before the Karnataka Women's
Commission. His submission is that all these
complaints have been filed in a false manner
only to harass the Petitioner.
8.5. The ingredients of the offence under Section
498A not having been made out, both the
proceedings in both matters are required to be
quashed.
8.6. A proceeding had been pending before the III
Additional Civil Judge Junior Division at JMFC
Court, Shimoga for offences under Section
498A and 380 of the IPC, another proceeding
could not be filed and be pending in CC No.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
28129/2023 before the 24th Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Bengaluru for offences
under Section 498A, 504, 306, 307, 494 read
with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of
the DP Act.
8.7. The Petitioner is being prosecuted for virtually
the same offence in two different fora since one
of the offences complained of is that under
section 498A of the IPC.
8.8. On the basis of all the above, he submits that
the above petitions are required to be
dismissed.
9. Learned HCGP would submit that,
9.1. Initially, the complaint, which had been filed in
Shimoga, was that of theft and subsequently,
after recording of statements, the offence
under section 498A was added, inasmuch as
the statements indicated that the Petitioner and
his family members had demanded dowry.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
9.2. Insofar as the Bangalore matter is concerned,
his submission is that it is on account of the act
which has been committed in Bangalore of
setting the complainant on fire that an offence
under Section 307, being an attempt to
murder, having been registered, proceedings
have been initiated in Bangalore within the
jurisdiction of the Court where the said offence
was committed.
9.3. Insofar as offences under 498A, 504, 506, 494
and 149 of the IPC are concerned, they are
incidental matters. His submission is that the
State has no objection to both the matters to
be taken up together and the trial to be
conducted together.
9.4. As regards the contention of the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that there is no
marital relationship the Petitioner and the
Respondent No.2, de facto complainant, his
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
submission is that the admitted living in
relationship itself would be sufficient for
initiating proceedings under section 498A.
10. Heard Sri.A.N.Radhakrishna, learned counsel for
Petitioner and Sri.Udaya Prakash Muliya, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl.P. No.9412/2021
and Sri.Harsha Kumar Gowda.H.P, learned counsel
for the Petitioner and Sri.Santhosh Kumar.M.B,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 in
Crl.P.No.8134/2024 and Sri.M.R.Patil, learned HCGP
for respondent No.1 in both the matters. Perused
papers.
11. The points that would arise for determination are
1. Whether an offence under Section 498A
could be committed only in a Valid marital
relationship, or could it be committed even in
void/voidable marriage or a relationship in
the nature of marriage, like a live-in
relationship?
2. Whether prosecution could be continued in
two different fora prosecuting the accused
for the very same offence under section
498A?
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
3. Whether in the present case, the statement
recorded by the Head Constable would have
to stand the test as applicable to a dying
declaration?
4. What order?
12. I answer the above points as follows:
13. ANSWER TO POINT NO.1: Whether an offence
under Section 498A could be committed only in
a Valid marital relationship, or could it be
committed even in void/voidable marriage or a
relationship in the nature of marriage, like a
live-in relationship?
13.1. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
which reads as follows:
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,
"cruelty" means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as
is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to
her to meet such demand.
13.2. A careful perusal of the above statutory
provision reveals that the legislative intent
underlying Section 498A IPC is to protect a
woman from cruelty at the hands of her
husband or his relatives. The section
criminalises such conduct and prescribes
punishment for the same. The explanation
appended to the section defines the term
"cruelty" in two distinct but complementary
limbs -- first, covering wilful conduct of such
nature as is likely to endanger the life, limb, or
mental or physical health of the woman; and
second, encompassing harassment with the
object of coercing the woman or her relatives to
meet any unlawful demand for dowry or
valuable security.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
13.3. The provision, therefore, has a twofold object --
(i) to deter acts of physical or mental cruelty
which drive women to despair or suicide; and
(ii) to curb the social evil of dowry-related
harassment. It is a remedial and socially
beneficial provision, designed to ensure the
dignity, safety, and protection of women.
13.4. It is the contention of Sri. Radhakrishna,
learned counsel for the Petitioner, that the
foundational requirement for invoking Section
498A is the existence of a legally valid marital
relationship between the complainant and the
accused. It is submitted that the expression
"husband" in Section 498A cannot encompass a
person who, in law, cannot be deemed to be a
husband -- such as one whose earlier marriage
is subsisting, rendering the subsequent
marriage void ab initio. According to the
learned counsel, since the Petitioner's marriage
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
with Respondent No.2 is void, null, and without
legal sanctity, the Petitioner cannot, in law, be
prosecuted under Section 498A IPC. Reliance is
placed on the literal wording of the Section,
which explicitly refers to "husband" and
"relative of husband."
13.5. In essence, the argument advanced is that
Section 498A contemplates only those cases
where a legally recognised marriage exists;
consequently, the Petitioner, having already
been married to one Smt. Naveena, cannot be
regarded as the "husband" of Respondent No.2,
and hence, no offence under Section 498A IPC
can be made out against him.
13.6. I'am unable to accept this submission. The
argument proceeds on an unduly technical
construction of the provision, divorced from its
legislative purpose and the social context in
which it operates. It is well settled that a penal
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
provision enacted to remedy a social evil must
be interpreted in a manner that advances the
object of the legislation rather than in a manner
that defeats it. The Court cannot permit the
accused to take advantage of his own wrong,
particularly where he himself has acted in
deceit and bad faith to induce Respondent No.2
into a relationship clothed with the appearance
of marriage.
13.7. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that
the Petitioner had already been married to one
Smt. Naveena, and a child was born out of that
wedlock. Despite the subsistence of that
marriage, the Petitioner, by suppressing the
existence of the first marriage, married
Respondent No.2, and thereafter cohabited with
her as husband and wife. The materials on
record indicate that the Petitioner and
Respondent No.2 lived together for a
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
substantial period, discharged marital
obligations, and held themselves out to society
as husband and wife. During this period, it is
alleged that the Petitioner received gold, silver,
and cash from Respondent No.2 and her family
members, and is alleged to have made further
unlawful demands, accompanied by acts of
harassment and cruelty, including an attempt
to cause her death.
13.8. If the Petitioner's submission were to be
accepted, it would produce a manifestly unjust
and anomalous result -- namely, that a man
who deceives a woman into a void marriage by
concealing his earlier marriage could then
escape criminal liability under Section 498A
merely because the relationship lacks legal
validity. Such a position would not only defeat
the purpose of the enactment but also
encourage fraud and exploitation of women
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
under the guise of invalid marital relationships.
The courts cannot countenance such a perverse
consequence.
13.9. The term "husband" in Section 498A must be
given a purposive and expansive construction,
and the protection afforded by the provision
cannot be denied merely on the technical
ground of a void marriage. Where a man
induces a woman to believe that she is lawfully
married to him, and thereafter subjects her to
cruelty, such a man cannot be permitted to
evade criminal responsibility on the plea that no
valid marriage existed in law.
13.10. The facts, as they stand, clearly show that the
Petitioner and Respondent No.2 lived together
in a relationship having all the trappings of a
marital union. They cohabited, represented
themselves as husband and wife, and
performed domestic and social obligations
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
typically associated with marriage. The
relationship thus falls squarely within what has
been recognised in recent times as a
"relationship in the nature of marriage", or
colloquially known as a "Live-In" relationship,
attracting the protective umbrella of Section
498A, provided the factual allegations satisfy
the elements of "cruelty" as defined in the
explanation to the section.
13.11. The argument that the relationship was merely
a live-in arrangement is equally untenable in
the present factual matrix. Even assuming that
the relationship is not legally valid, the nature
and substance of the relationship, rather than
its formal legality, is determinative for the
purpose of invoking Section 498A. Where
parties live together as husband and wife, and
the woman is subjected to cruelty or
harassment in that relationship, she cannot be
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
left remediless merely because the man had
concealed a subsisting marriage. The legislative
intent behind Section 498A, being to suppress a
social mischief, requires a liberal and purposive
construction, more so when the man has
married the woman, the woman is under the
belief that she is legally married to the man, it
was only the man who was aware that the
marriage was void, which he seeks to take
advantage of when prosecuted for a crime
relating or in connection thereto.
13.12. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that
the Petitioner cannot be permitted to defeat the
operation of Section 498A IPC by invoking the
validity of his own second marriage. Having
induced Respondent No.2 into a marital
relationship through deception, and having
allegedly subjected her to cruelty and unlawful
demands, the Petitioner stands on no higher
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
footing than a husband within the meaning and
mischief of Section 498A IPC.
13.13. The test is not merely whether the marriage is
valid in law, but whether the relationship has
been abused in a manner that the section seeks
to prevent. The mischief of the provision is
attracted wherever a woman is subjected to
cruelty by a man who stands in such a
relationship as a husband, whether lawfully or
deceitfully so.
13.14. In the result, I hold that the expression
"husband" in Section 498A IPC is not confined
to a man in a legally valid marriage, but
extends to one who enters into a marital
relationship which is void or voidable, as also to
a live-in relationship which bears the attributes
of marriage, so long as the essential ingredients
of cruelty as defined in the explanation to the
section are satisfied.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
13.15. Whether the conduct of the Petitioner actually
constitutes cruelty within the meaning of the
Section is a matter that would necessarily have
to be determined upon appreciation of evidence
at the stage of trial.
13.16. In view of the above discussion, I answer Point
No. 1 by holding that the provisions of Section
498A IPC are attracted even in cases of a void
or voidable marriage, or a relationship in the
nature of marriage, provided the ingredients of
the offence are otherwise established.
14. ANSWER TO POINT NO.2: - Whether
prosecution could be continued in two different
fora prosecuting the accused for the very same
offence under Section 498A?
14.1. The contention of Sri.Radhakrishna, learned
counsel for the Petitioner is that the proceeding
in CC No. 630/2019 pending before the II
Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and JMFC,
Shivamogga, is that under Section 498A and
there are further proceedings in CC No. 28129
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
of 2023 for offenses under section 498A, 504,
506, 307, 494 read with Section 149 of the IPC
and Section 3 and 4 of the DP Act pending on
the file of the 24th Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru, and on that ground he
submits that the offences in both the matters
relating to Section 498A of the IPC prosecution
of two proceedings, is not permissible.
14.2. There is substance in the said submission of
Sri.Radhakrishna, inasmuch as it being
categorical that the offence under Section 498A
is being tried in both matters, there is a
possibility of conflicting judgments being
rendered by two different courts, and as such,
in my considered opinion, both the matters
would have to be tried together.
14.3. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.2
by holding that prosecution could not be
continued in two different fora prosecuting the
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
accused for the very same offence under
Section 498A. The proceedings in CC No. 630 of
2019, pending on the file of the III Additional
Civil Judge (Jr.Division) and JMFC, Shivamogga,
is transferred to the Court of the 24th Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to be
tried along with CC No. 28129 of 2023.
15. Answer to point No.3: Whether in the present
case, the statement recorded by the Head
Constable would have to stand the test as that
applicable to a dying declaration?
15.1. Many arguments have been made by the
learned counsel for the Petitioner upon the
alleged irregularities in the manner of recording
the statement of Respondent No.2 and the
alleged improper opening and maintenance of
the Medico-Legal Case (MLC) register at the
relevant point of time.
15.2. According to the Petitioner, the failure to record
the statement in the prescribed form and the
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
alleged procedural lapses in registering the MLC
case would render the said statement
unreliable, and therefore, the proceedings
founded thereon deserve to be quashed.
15.3. However, these contentions, in my considered
view, pertain to matters of evidence and the
manner of proof, which are to be tested during
the course of trial and not in a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. The scope of jurisdiction
under Section 482 is confined to examining
whether the complaint and materials on record
disclose a prima facie case -- it does not extend
to evaluating the evidentiary value or
procedural regularity of documents or
statements that form part of the investigative
record.
15.4. Be that as it may, the principal basis of the
Petitioner's submission is that the statement
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
recorded from Respondent No.2 could not be
treated as credible, since it was not recorded in
the manner prescribed for a dying declaration,
and that, had Respondent No.2 expired, the
same would have been inadmissible for want of
procedural compliance.
15.5. This argument, in my view, proceeds on a
fundamental misconception of the law of
evidence. The admissibility of a statement as a
dying declaration arises only when the maker of
the statement has died, as contemplated under
Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
now Section 26(1) of the new Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, which carves
out an exception to the rule against hearsay.
15.6. The rationale behind admitting a dying
declaration is that when a person is at the
verge of death, and there is no hope of
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
survival, the presumption of truthfulness
attaches to the statement made.
15.7. In the present case, Respondent No.2 has
survived; she continues to be alive and is
actively prosecuting the matter. Consequently,
the question of the statement being treated or
tested as a dying declaration does not arise.
The statement made by Respondent No.2 is,
therefore, to be regarded as an ordinary
statement of a witness or victim, forming part
of the investigative process, and its probative
value must be assessed during the course of
trial in accordance with the normal rules of
evidence.
15.8. It is well settled that when a witness or
complainant survives and enters the witness
box, the best evidence of the events is her own
testimony before the Court, which can be
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
tested by cross-examination. The statement
recorded during investigation, whether in the
form of an MLC note or a recorded statement,
merely constitutes a previous statement
admissible for the purpose of corroboration, or
for contradiction, subject to proof and
relevancy. Its evidentiary value and reliability
are matters for appreciation at trial, and cannot
form the basis for quashing proceedings at the
threshold.
15.9. Therefore, the test of admissibility applicable to
a dying declaration cannot, by any stretch of
reasoning, be invoked to invalidate or discredit
the statement of a living witness or victim. To
accept such an argument would amount to
rewriting the well-established laws of Evidence
and would lead to absurd consequences.
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
15.10. The attempt by Sri.A.N.Radhakrishna, learned
counsel for the Petitioner, to import the
rigorous requirements of a dying declaration --
such as certification of fitness by a medical
officer, or the manner of recording by a
Magistrate -- into the evaluation of a regular
witness statement made by a living person, is
therefore wholly misconceived in law. The
evidentiary value of the said statement, if any,
must be tested at trial through the process of
examination and cross-examination, and not at
this interlocutory stage.
15.11. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that
the alleged procedural irregularities in recording
the MLC or the statement of Respondent No.2
do not, by themselves, vitiate the proceedings
or furnish any ground for quashing the
prosecution.
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
15.12. In light of the above discussion, I answer Point
No. 3 by holding that the statement recorded
from Respondent No.2 would have to stand the
test of admissibility and credibility applicable to
an ordinary statement of a living witness, and
not that applicable to a dying declaration. The
principles governing dying declarations would
become relevant only if the person making the
statement were deceased.
15.13. Since Respondent No.2 is alive and has chosen
to prosecute the matter, her statement shall be
assessed in accordance with the normal rules of
evidence during trial. The evidentiary worth or
otherwise of such statement shall be
determined by the Trial Court on the basis of
the evidence adduced, without being influenced
by any observation made herein.
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47594
CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
HC-KAR
16. ANSWER TO POINT NO.4: What Order?
16.1. In view of the above discussion and answers to
Points 1 to 3, I do not find any merit in the
petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. hence,
I pass the following
ORDER
i. The petitions are accordingly dismissed, ii. The proceedings in CC No. 630 of 2019, pending on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Division) and JMFC, Shivamogga, is transferred to the Court of the 24th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to be tried along with CC No. 28129 of 2023.
iii. The criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner shall proceed in accordance with law.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1