SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 2414

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Shwetha Raghaven Dra – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 8134 of 2024, Criminal Petition No. 9412 of 2021
Decided On : 18-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Harsha Kumar Gowda H.R.
For the Respondents: M.R. Patil, Santhosh Kumar M.B.

Section 498A IPC extends its protective scope to relationships resembling marriage, regardless of legal validity, thereby ensuring protection against cruelty.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Valid marital relationship - Scope of Section 498A IPC extends to relationships in nature of marriage, including void marriages - Protection under Section 498A cannot be denied based on legal status of marriage - The provision aims to protect women from cruelty regardless of the form the relationship takes - Admissibility of statements of living witnesses assessed under regular evidence standards, not as dying declarations. (Paras 13.1 to 15.13)

(B) Quashing Proceedings - Prosecution cannot continue in two fora for the same offense under Section 498A - Ensures there are no conflicting judgments in similar matters. (Paras 14.1 to 14.3)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC alleging mental and physical cruelty by respondent. The relationship was later argued as void due to a previous marriage by petitioner.

Findings of Court:
The court held that Section 498A applies to relationships entered by deceit. The concurrent trials led to risks of conflicting judgments.

Issues: Whether an offence under Section 498A can be established in a void marriage or relationship in the nature of marriage? Can prosecution proceed in two different courts for the same offence?

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 498A broadly to include relationships that simulate marriage. Procedural irregularities of recorded statements do not affect the quashing of proceedings.

Result: Petitions dismissed, and proceedings consolidated for trial.

Table of Content
1. establishing the factual context of the accusations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments against the allegations, focusing on marital validity and credibility of testimonies. (Para 8 , 9)
3. determination of the applicability of section 498a to non-legal marriages. (Para 11 , 13)
4. interpretation of legal proceedings concerning dual jurisdiction for similar charges. (Para 12 , 14)
5. final ruling and dismissal of petitions. (Para 16)

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.

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 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 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. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top