Kiran Raj

The Karnataka High Court Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, has dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash proceedings in a case where the petitioner faces charges under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner had challenged the legality of the investigation’s transfer and sought discharge from the case. The High Court, after examining the records, held that the allegations warranted a full trial and refused to interfere with the proceedings.

The petitioner was accused of causing the death of his wife in an incident on August 26, 2018, in which the deceased allegedly fell from the 16th floor of their apartment in Bengaluru. The petitioner and his two children initially reported the incident as an accidental fall, and the police registered a case of unnatural death under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Convictions in Murder Case, Citing Inconsistent Testimonies, Flawed Investigation, and Lack of Credible Evidence

Following the completion of funeral rites, the complainant—the petitioner’s son—lodged a police complaint on September 11, 2018, alleging that his father had pushed his mother off the balcony. The complaint described a history of domestic abuse and violent behavior. The complainant stated:

"My father was always fighting with my mother, beating her, and issuing threats. On that day, I heard him shouting, ‘Main tujhe jaan se maar dunga haraamzaadi! Teri itni himmat ki tune mujhpe haath uthaya?’ (‘I will kill you, you wretched woman! How dare you raise your hand on me?’). When I ran to the balcony, I saw my father flipping my mother over the railing. He turned to me and repeatedly said, ‘Maine kuch nahi kiya!’ (‘I did nothing!’)."

The complainant’s sister, in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, corroborated this account. She stated:

"My father used to spit on my mother, hit her, and abuse her physically and mentally. One day, he dragged her by her hair from the bedroom to the kitchen because she was unwell and asked him to make his own tea. Another time, he struck her with a shoe when she objected to his insults."

The case was initially investigated by the RMC Yard Police Station, which registered an FIR under Section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide). The complainant later requested a change in the investigating officer, citing concerns of bias. On September 12, 2018, the Commissioner of Police transferred the case to the Bagalgunte Police Station, which subsequently added charges under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 302 (murder) IPC. The trial court took cognizance of the charge sheet and committed the case to the Sessions Court under S.C. No. 715 of 2019.

The petitioner filed an application for discharge, contending that the allegations were improbable and that the transfer of investigation was unlawful. The trial court rejected the discharge application, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.

The High Court examined whether the transfer of investigation was legally valid and whether the allegations warranted trial.

Regarding the transfer of investigation, the court held:

"The investigation being transferred to a different police station within the same division does not violate Section 36 CrPC. The superior officer had the jurisdiction to transfer the case, and there is no illegality in the decision."

The petitioner argued that the allegations were false and motivated by family disputes. The court, however, stated:

"The same yardstick applies to the children—why would they falsely implicate their own father in such a grave offence? The detailed statements of both the son and daughter provide a vivid account of domestic abuse and the events leading to the incident."

On the charge under Section 498A IPC, the court observed:

"Cruelty, even in the absence of dowry demand, can constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC. The allegations indicate persistent acts of cruelty, making it a matter for trial."

Addressing the charge under Section 302 IPC, the court noted:

"When there is direct evidence, including the eyewitness account of the son, stating that the petitioner pushed the deceased off the balcony, it becomes a matter for trial. Quashing proceedings at this stage would be impermissible."

The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which holds that cases involving serious allegations should proceed to trial unless the charges are manifestly baseless.

Rejecting the petitioner’s contentions, the court recorded:

"Finding the submissions of the learned senior counsel absolutely meritless, there is no warrant to entertain the petition and lend a protective umbrella to the petitioner. The petition draped in imaginary legal infirmities is bereft of any redeeming foundation, therefore, has to meet its dismissal."

Also Read: "Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Injunction: ‘Minimal Judicial Interference’ as Key to Arbitration Integrity"

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the allegations required adjudication through trial. The court directed:

"Interim order, if any, operating, stands dissolved. Since the issue is of the year 2018, it is necessary that the concerned Court would conclude the proceedings at an outer limit of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier. Consequently, pending applications, if any, also stand disposed."

The case will continue before the Sessions Court, where the petitioner will have the opportunity to present his defense.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri Hashmath Pasha, Senior Advocate  Sri Mahammadali, Advocate

For the Respondents:Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, Additional State Public Prosecutor (for State of Karnataka), Sri Manu P. Kulkarni, Advocate (for Respondent No. 4)

Case Title: Devendra Bhatia v. State of Karnataka
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 19567 of 2023
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna