Kiran Raj

The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, of  Justice M. Nagaprasanna, dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings against two accused under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners, accused in a case registered under Sections 323, 324, 498A, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sought relief on the grounds that allegations against them were vague and lacked material evidence. The court observed that "the summary of the charge sheet discloses cruelty in the case at hand by both the petitioners – mother-in-law and father-in-law."

The court further recorded that merely because offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act had been dropped during the filing of the charge sheet, it did not preclude the applicability of Section 498A IPC, as cruelty could exist independently of dowry demands. The judgment stated, "The Apex Court observes that demand of dowry need not be an allegation for an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, if cruelty is prima facie met."

Also Read: Supreme Court Mandates Prior CCI Approval for Resolution Plans Involving Combinations, Overturns NCLAT Decision

The petitioners, a government employee and a homemaker, were accused Nos. 2 and 3 in proceedings arising from a complaint filed by the second respondent, the daughter-in-law. The complaint was registered as Crime No. 16/2023 and later converted into C.C. No. 387/2023 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudligi, Ballari. The allegations included physical assault, harassment, and mental cruelty.

The complainant, the wife of accused No. 1 (not a party to the petition), alleged that she was subjected to domestic violence and torture by her husband and in-laws following their marriage on July 2, 2021. The complaint was registered on January 23, 2023, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings.

The petitioners initially sought quashing of the FIR in Crl.P.No.101763/2023, which was dismissed on August 10, 2023. The High Court, at that stage, recorded, "The issue now lies in a narrow compass as the crime is registered only on 23.01.2023, and what is required to be noticed is the complaint, whether it does make out ingredients of the offences alleged or not." Following further investigation, a charge sheet was filed, prompting the petitioners to approach the court once again.

The petitioners contended that the charge sheet retained all IPC offences but had dropped charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. They argued that in the absence of dowry-related allegations, Section 498A IPC should not apply. They further claimed that they did not reside with the complainant and were being falsely implicated. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that "all allegations are against the husband. The mother-in-law and father-in-law do not stay with the couple but they are unnecessarily dragged into the web of crime."

The second respondent, the complainant, opposed the petition, asserting that allegations of cruelty and harassment were not limited to dowry demands. The prosecution, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, argued that the charge sheet established a prima facie case against the petitioners.

The High Court examined the charge sheet and noted that the complainant had made specific allegations of physical and mental cruelty against the petitioners. The court recorded that "the complainant has been tortured by the accused and, therefore, it is a matter of trial for them to come out clean."

The court examined Section 498A IPC and its legislative intent, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Aluri Venkata Ramana v. Aluri Thirupathi Rao (SLP (Crl.) No. 9243 of 2024). The judgment noted, "Section 498A of the IPC was introduced in the year 1983 with the primary objective of protecting married women from cruelty at the hands of their husbands or their in-laws." It further clarified that the provision encompassed both physical and mental cruelty, and its application was not contingent upon dowry demands.

The court referred to the legislative intent behind Section 498A, quoting, "The aim for the introduction of Section 498A in the IPC is not only to curb cruelty relating to dowry demand but also cases of cruelty to married women by their in-laws."

Examining the applicability of Section 498A IPC in the absence of dowry allegations, the judgment cited U. Suvetha v. State, stating, "An unlawful demand for dowry is not a pre-requisite element to constitute 'cruelty' under Section 498A IPC. It suffices that the conduct falls within either of the two broad categories outlined in clauses (a) or (b) of the provision."

The court recorded that the charge sheet contained material indicating that the complainant was subjected to acts of cruelty. It noted that "the complainant has been assaulted by pulling her hair by both accused Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioners herein. There are eye witnesses to the incident. The charge sheet depicts the screaming of daughter-in-law, heard by a neighbor, who had come to her rescue."

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Upholds KMC’s Action Under Fisheries Act: “Petitioner Failed to Substantiate Ownership Claim”

Addressing concerns regarding the alleged misuse of Section 498A IPC, the court acknowledged that "there are scores and scores of cases where offence under Section 498A of the IPC is misused." However, it stated that "merely because there is misuse of the said provision, that does not mean in cases where there is real torture can be brushed aside. The case at hand is one such illustration."

The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the case involved direct allegations of cruelty that warranted trial. The order recorded, "Therefore, finding no merit in the petition, the petition deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: B.C. Jnanayya Swami, Adovcate

For the State of Karnataka: Sharad V. Magadum, Additional Government Advocate

For the Complainant: L.T. Mantagani, Advocate

Case Title:  Sri H. Sanna Devanna & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 103553 of 2023
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna

[Read/Download order]