CRL.P/4213/2020 of RAJ N Vs STAET OF KARNATAKA on 1 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The prayer sought in the petition is to quash the FIR and the complaint against the petitioners herein wherein the offences are invoked in Crime No.46/2020 for the offences

HC-KAR

punishable under Sections 498(A), 312, 313, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC as per Annexes-A and B.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner is the father-in-law of the complainant, now he is no more, and he passed away after filing of this petition and hence the petition against petitioner No.1 is abated. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the mother-in- law and sister-in-law of the complainant. Learned counsel brought to notice of this Court, the copy of the complaint wherein an allegation is made that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with her husband and the said marriage is love marriage and also inter-caste marriage. The only allegation made against the petitioner No.2 i.e. mother-in- law, is that petitioner No.2 and her husband were telling that they are going to get a bride of Brahmin community, and so also the allegation against petitioner No.3 i.e., sister-in-law, is that an amount of Rs.42,572/- is got transferred by the complainant in order to get an iPhone to petitioner No.3. Except these allegations, nothing is mentioned in the complaint and these allegations will not constitute an offence under Section

HC-KAR

498A and the allegation for the offence invoked in the FIR i.e., under Sections 312 and 313, are against the husband and even causing of threat also against the husband under Section 506 of IPC. When such being the case and when there is no allegation against these petitioners in order to attract the aforesaid sections, it is nothing but an abuse of process of law by roping the mother-in-law as well as sister-in-law in a matrimonial dispute.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-complainant would submit that the relief is sought for quashing of FIR and it is a matter of investigation by the Investigating Officer and at the stage of registration of the FIR this Court cannot exercise its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the IO has to investigate the matter and invoke the appropriate offences.

5. Learned Additional State Public Prosecution appearing to the respondent No.1-State would also submit that the FIR is registered based on the complaint and the IO has yet to investigate the matter.

HC-KAR

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant and State, this Court has to look into the contents of the complaint at the time of quashing of the FIR. No doubt, the Apex Court in the judgment of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in 2018 (3) SCC 104, at paragraph Nos.30 and 31 categorically made it clear that the High Court should not venture to quash the FIR if complaint does disclose the committing of an offence. Having conscious about the said principle laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court, Court has to look into the contents of the complaint. Having perused the contents of the complaint and also the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that except stating the word by the mother-in-law that they were going to get a bride particularly belonging to their caste and also transferring the amount in order to get the iPhone in favour of the sister-in-law, nothing is stated in the complaint. The Court has to look into the contents of the complaint. Whether the complaint does disclose the committing of an

HC-KAR

offence and invoking the offence punishable under Section 498A, 312, 313 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and since such ingredients of the offences are not made out in the complaint against the petitioners herein, and hence, the complaint does not disclose the ingredients for the said offences. When such being the case, when the Court fails to consider the contents of the complaint for the said offence, if allowed to continue the investigation against the petitioners herein, it amounts to an abuse of process or otherwise it leads to the miscarriage of justice. Having considered the contents of the complaint, it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

7. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. Petition in respect of petitioner No.1 is abated and petition in respect of petition Nos.2 and 3 i.e., accused Nos.3 and 4, is allowed.

HC-KAR

ii. The FIR in Crime No.46/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 312, 313, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC by respondent No.1-Women’s Police Station, Mysuru, in respect of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein is quashed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24