2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 26654
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J
Vinay Kumar S. – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No.18828 of 2025|Writ Petition No.31907 of 2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Sri Hashmath Pasha, Senior Advocate, Sri Kariappa N. A., Advocate
For the Respondents:Sri B. N. Jagadeesha, Additional SPP, Sri Manu B. P., Advocate
The term 'relative' in BNS Sections 80 and 85 (dowry death/cruelty) is limited to persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, excluding distant relatives who only participated in a reconciliation attempt.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) - Sections 80 (Dowry death), 85 (Cruelty by husband or relatives), 352 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 3(5) (Act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 482 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) - Section 528 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 2 (Definition of dowry) - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113-B (Presumption as to dowry death) - Constitution of India - Article 226.
(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of proceedings - Inherent jurisdiction - Exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS/482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings at the threshold is not warranted when the allegations, death note, witness statements, and surrounding circumstances cumulatively disclose issues which can only be adjudicated upon a full-fledged trial. A mini-trial is impermissible at this stage. (Para 15)
(C) Criminal Law - Dowry death - Ingredients of Section 80 BNS (304B IPC) - For attracting the provision, four prerequisites must be met: (i) death of a woman caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) death within seven years of marriage; (iii) woman subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relative soon before her death; and (iv) such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand for dowry. The expression 'dowry' has an expansive meaning and includes any demand made on a woman, whether in respect of property or valuable security of any nature. (Paras 12, 13 of State of M.P. v. Jogendra)
(D) Criminal Law - Dowry death - 'Soon before death' - The phrase is a relative term and not synonymous with 'immediately before death.' No straitjacket formula can be laid down. The proximity test requires a live link between the cruelty based on dowry demand and the death, but the time lag may differ from case to case. If cruelty or harassment is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be 'soon before death' if no intervening circumstance shows non-existence of such treatment. (Paras 16.1, 16.2, 16.3 - relying on Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana, and State of M.P. v. Jogendra) (E) Criminal Law - 'Relative' - Interpretation - The term 'relative' in the context of Sections 80 and 85 BNS (Sections 304B and 498A IPC) is not defined in the statute and must be construed strictly. It is limited to persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption. A person who is not a relative of the husband within this definition cannot be prosecuted for the offence of dowry death. (Paras 18-19 - relying on State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh) (F) Criminal Law - Quashing - Distant relatives - Permitting proceedings against distant relatives who had no role to play in the lives of the accused or the deceased and who only visited the complainant's house for reconciliation would become an abuse of the process of law.
Facts of the case:
A marriage was solemnized on 10-11-2024. The husband (accused no.1) was a US resident; the wife joined him in the US on 05-02-2025. Within two months, on 19-04-2025, the wife returned to her parental home with allegations of cruelty. On 23-04-2025, accused nos.2 to 6 (in-laws and distant relatives) visited the complainant's home, ostensibly for reconciliation, but allegedly subjected the deceased to verbal abuse and humiliation, including questioning her character. On 24-04-2025, the deceased authored a death note and committed suicide. A complaint was lodged leading to Crime No.164/2025 for offences under Sections 80, 85, 352 and 3(5) of BNS. A charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken against accused nos.1 to 6. The de-facto complainant later entered into a settlement with the accused, but the court refused closure due to the nature of the offence. The accused sought quashing of the proceedings.
Findings of Court:
(i) The allegations, death note, witness statements, and circumstances cumulatively disclose issues requiring a full trial for accused nos.1 to 4, thus not warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings against them. (Paras 15, 17) (ii) Accused nos.5 and 6 were distant relatives. They were not relatives by blood, marriage, or adoption as required under Section 80/85 BNS. They only visited the complainant's house to seek an explanation and could not be drawn into the proceedings. Quashing proceedings against them would prevent abuse of process. (Paras 18-19)
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations in the complaint and charge sheet disclose the ingredients of offences under Sections 80, 85, 352 and 3(5) of BNS? 2. Whether the proceedings against all accused deserve to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers? 3. Whether accused nos.5 and 6, being distant relatives, can be proceeded against for the offence of dowry death?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the phrase 'soon before death' under Section 80 BNS is a relative term requiring a pragmatic approach and cannot be rigidly defined. The test of proximity is not fixed and depends on facts and circumstances. In this case, the material, including the death note, disclosed a continuing course of cruelty and allegations regarding dowry, making a mini-trial inappropriate. However, the term 'relative' under Sections 80 and 85 BNS is limited to persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption. Since accused nos.5 and 6 were distant relatives who only participated in a reconciliation attempt, they did not fall within this definition, and proceedings against them were an abuse of process.
Result: (i) Writ Petition No.18828 of 2025 (filed by accused no.1) dismissed. (ii) Writ Petition No.31907 of 2025 allowed in part. (iii) Petition qua accused nos.1 to 4 dismissed, with liberty to avail remedies in law, and observations in the order shall not bind the court considering such remedies. (iv) Impugned proceedings qua accused nos.5 and 6 quashed. (v) Respondents accused nos.1 to 4 are not precluded from seeking any legal remedy. (All paragraphs of the judgment)
CAV ORDER
These two petitions are preferred by all the accused in C.C.No. 21651 of 2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 80 , 85, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS. Writ Petition No.18828 of 2025 is preferred by the husband/accused No.1 and the companion petition Writ Petition No.31907 of 2025 is preferred by accused Nos. 2 to 6 . It is therefore, they are taken up together and considered by this common order.
2. Heard Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners along with Sri Kariappa N.A., Sri B. N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for State and Sri Manu B P, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in both the petitions.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
3.1. Before entering upon the marrow of the controversy, it becomes apposite to notice, in brief, the inter se relationship between the parties to the lis. The deceased was the daughter of the 3rd respondent/de-facto complainant. Accused No.1 was her husband; accused Nos.2 and 3, her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively; accused No.4, her brother-in-law; and accused Nos.5 and 6, distant relatives of accused Nos.1 to 4. The matrimonial alliance between accused No.1 and the daughter of the complainant was solemnized on 10-11-2024. Barely days after the sacred knot was tied, accused No.1 departed to the United States on 23-11-2024 in pursuit of his avocation, while the bride remained in India, awaiting the commencement of conjugal companionship. Nearly three months thereafter, on 05-02-2025, the daughter of the complainant journeyed to the United States to join her husband. Yet, what ought to have blossomed into the serene companionship of matrimony is alleged to have withered into discord and estrangement. Within scarcely two months of her arrival in the United States, the daughter returned to her parental home in Bengaluru on 19-04-2025, carrying with her allegations of cruelty at the hands of her husband. Four days thereafter, on 23-04-2025, accused Nos.2 to 6 are stated to have visited the residence of the complainant with the professed object of bringing about reconciliation between the spouses.
3.2. The events that unfolded thereafter took a tragic and irreversible turn. On 24-04-2025, a day after the visit of accused Nos.2 to 6, the daughter of the complainant is alleged to have authored a death note and thereafter extinguished her own life. The sorrowing father, shattered by the untimely demise of his daughter, lodged a complaint, which came to be registered as Crime No.164 of 2025 for the offences afore-noted. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the jurisdictional police undertook investigation and ultimately laid a charge sheet against all the accused. The learned jurisdictional Court, upon perusal of the material placed before it, took cognizance and registered the impugned C.C. It is this initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings that has driven the petitioners to the portals of this Court, assailing the registration of C.C. No.21651 of 2025 and the continuance of trial against them.
4.1. The learned senior counsel, Sri Hashmath Pasha, appearing for the petitioners, would vehemently contend that there is no allegation in the complaint or in the charge sheet, which can become the ingredients of Sections 80 and 85 of the BNS/304B and 498A of the earlier regime of IPC. The learned senior counsel submits that there was no demand or acceptance of dowry, either at the time of marriage or before the marriage. There is neither cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased. Therefore, the said offences cannot be made out. Marital discord between the husband and the wife and the resultant death of the wife cannot become the ingredients under Sections 80 or 85 of the BNS, unless the demand of dowry is attached to it. The FIR does not include the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act at all. Therefore, the crime or filing of the charge shee
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
