IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Lokesh B.H. S/o Late Halappa B.E. – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 8134 of 2024, Criminal Petition No. 9412 of 2021
Decided On : 18-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the case and allegations against the petitioner. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments by the petitioner regarding the legality of marriage. (Para 8) |
| 3. court's analysis of the arguments presented. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. interpretation of section 498a ipc and implications of void relationships. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. final order and dismissal of petitions. (Para 15 , 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. Thereafter, when her mother and brother came to t
Section 498A IPC applies to both legally valid marriages and relationships masquerading as such, addressing cruelty irrespective of legal status.
Section 498A IPC extends its protective scope to relationships resembling marriage, regardless of legal validity, thereby ensuring protection against cruelty.
The court held that mere admonishment and lack of credible evidence regarding dowry demand do not satisfy the statutory definition of cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC.
General and unsupported allegations in matrimonial disputes cannot sustain criminal charges against relatives; specific acts must be demonstrated to justify prosecution.
Allegations under Section 498-A IPC must be specific; omnibus claims lack legal sufficiency to support prosecution.
Section 498A of IPC reads as husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
Conviction under Section 498-A IPC cannot stand on hearsay evidence alone; direct proof of sustained cruelty or harassment is essential.
General and vague allegations do not support criminal charges under dowry laws; specific claims must merit trial while protecting against misuse of legal provisions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.