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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27294

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J
SMT. SHREYA S. PAI @ CHANDRIKA KAMAT – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.3809 OF 2024 (GM – RES) | WRIT PETITION No.28591 OF 2023 (GM – RES)



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:SMT.JAINA KOTARI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, SRI ARPAN B.PATTANASHETTI
For the Respondents:SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP, SRI SANDESH S CHOUTA, SR.ADVOCATE, SRI AKASH B.SHETTI

Section 498A IPC requires specific allegations of cruelty that were absent, rendering the complaints an abuse of process and unjustified.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 406, 403, 109, 384, 34 and 498A - Quashing of FIRs - The Court held that FIRs were initiated with ulterior motives to settle scores from matrimonial disputes and did not disclose any ingredients to maintain proceedings under the IPC. (Paras 21-23)

(B) Legal Proceedings - Legal obligations under maintenance orders cannot form grounds for claims of extortion; thus, allegations against the wife for cheating and criminal breach of trust failed. (Paras 22-23)

Facts of the case:
The respondent and husband have a history of multiple legal proceedings related to matrimonial disputes, including allegations of cruelty under Section 498A, which were deemed to lack substance due to the lack of specific allegations and significant delays in the complaint process. (Paras 12-13)

Findings of Court:
The contentions of the husband in both FIRs were determined to be baseless and motivated, lacking the necessary elements for prosecution under the relevant legislation. (Paras 21-23)

Issues: The core issues involved the legitimacy of complaints filed under Section 498A and whether the evidence substantiated claims of extortion and harassment. (Paras 21-22)

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings cannot continue if allegations are vague and lack the requisite details to substantiate claims of illegal conduct; courts must prevent the misuse of laws intended for genuine cases of cruelty. (Paras 22-23)

Result: Both FIRs quashed due to lack of substantive allegations making them a misuse of legal process.

Table of Content
1. background of complaints and counter complaints. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments on abuse of process of law. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. court's detailed observations on allegations. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. legal reasoning for quashing firs. (Para 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

CAV ORDER

In the course of this order, for the sake of convenience, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.28591 of 2023 who is the husband of the complainant will be referred to as the petitioner or THE husband and the 1st petitioner in Writ Petition No.3809 of 2024 who is the wife of the petitioner in the companion petition will be referred to as the respondent or the wife. The other parties will be referred as per their rank in the writ petitions. These petitions arise out of complaints and counter complaints between the petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife, details of which are narrated hereinbelow.

2. Facts in Writ Petition No.28591 of 2023: The petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife get married on 10-05-2007. Two children are born from the wedlock, a son and a daughter on 11-12-2011 and 02-05-2013. It is the case of the prosecution that on 28-04-2016 the husband receives a message from one Chaithra Shetty through face-book message which indicated that the respondent/wife and Prasad Shetty, the husband of Chaithra Shetty are in relationship. The petitioner is said to have questioned the respondent/wife about the allegations made by Chaithra Shetty. The respondent/wife is said to have admitted that Prasad Shetty was her ex-boyfriend and further promised that she will never get in touch with her ex-boyfriend. After the said incident, it is averred, the relationship between the two – petitioner and the respondent – got completely strained. On 10-09-2020 the respondent/wife leaves the matrimonial house in Mangalore and shifts to Bangalore with kids. Since then the kids are with the respondent/wife and have been staying at Bangalore.

3. On 05-10-2020 the petitioner receives a legal notice from the hands of the respondent/wife calling upon him to agree for a mutual consent for termination of marriage and to discuss with regard to the settlement about kids. Another notice is received on 15-03-2022 in which the averment is that in the event the husband would not come forward for settlement, criminal proceedings would be initiated. After this on 11-04-2022, the parties start mediation to sort out differences between them. When the mediation failed or did not reach the terms of settlement as thought by the respondent/wife, on 07-10-2023 she files an application under Section 10 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT seeking separation. Immediately thereafter, on the next day, she files a complaint before the jurisdictional Police alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of the IPC. This becomes a crime in Crime No.295 of 2023. Again, a third proceeding is initiated by the respondent/wife on 09-10-2023 invoking Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in Criminal Miscellaneous No.851 of 2023 seeking maintenance from the hands of the petitioner/husband. Fourth proceeding is instituted by the respondent/wife in Criminal Miscellaneous No.153 of 2023 invoking Section 12 of the DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT .

4. The petitioner/husband files a complaint against the wife/respondent, her ex-boyfriend Prasad Shetty and her mother alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 403, 109, 384 and 34 of the IPC in Crime No. 176 of 2023. Proceedings in Crime No.295 of 2023 are challenged by the petitioner/husband in Writ Petition No.28591 of 2023. The petitioner/husband then files a G & W.C No.30 of 2023 for custody of children which is pending consideration. On 29-11-2023 after all these proceedings, the petitioner/husband files a petition in M.C.No.1688 of 2023 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent/wife and other accused challenged the crime so registered in Crime No.176 of 2023 in Writ petition No.3809 of 2024.

5. The crux of t

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