Successful Cases

High Court

Karnataka High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Husband in Dowry Harassment Case, Grants Relief to In-Laws

The Karnataka High Court, in its recent judgment, delivered an important decision on the scope of criminal liability of in-laws in dowry harassment cases. Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed, in-part a petition filed by the husband, mother-in-law, and father-in-law, challenging the registration of an FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Background of the Case

The complainant (wife) had lodged a complaint in December 2024, leading to registration of FIR against her husband and in-laws. She alleged physical and mental cruelty, demand of dowry, and various forms of harassment during her short-lived marriage. The offences invoked included Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 and 85 of the BNS, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The husband and his parents approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, contending that the complaint was frivolous and based on trivialities.

The petitioners (husband and his parents) contented that the complaint was frivolous and unsustainable in law. It was contended that the allegations did not disclose the ingredients of cruelty or dowry demand. The accusations against the husband, according to them, were exaggerated, mentioning matters such as his indulgence in cricket betting, playing games like Ludo, and even treating the family’s pet cat better than his wife. It was further argued that the mother-in-law and father-in-law were unnecessarily dragged into the proceedings without any specific allegations attributed to them. The petitioners maintained that the FIR amounted to an abuse of process of law and sought its quashing in entirety.

Counsel for the complainant-wife strongly opposed the petition, asserting that the complaint contained detailed allegations of cruelty and harassment, while highlighting specific instances of physical violence, including an incident that led to the complainant’s hospitalization, supported by a discharge summary and medical records indicating wrist injuries caused by assault. The respondent also placed reliance on WhatsApp chats to show the husband’s abusive conduct and his alleged relationships outside marriage. 

Taking into account the detailed complaint, the WhatsApp chats, and the medical records, the Court held that the allegations against the husband disclosed the ingredients of cruelty and voluntarily causing hurt under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It therefore refused to quash the FIR as against him.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that “Insofar as 1st petitioner/husband is concerned, it is for him to face investigation and come out clean in a full-blown trial, as the allegations against him undoubtedly meet ingredients of every offence alleged.”

At the same time, the Court, while placing reliance on the judgements of the Supreme Court of India, held that the omnibus allegations against the mother-in-law and father-in-law did not make out offences under the provisions invoked, and continuing proceedings against them would amount to abuse of process. Accordingly, the FIR was quashed only insofar as they were concerned.

The Decision

The Court partially quashed the FIR, and the proceedings will continue against the husband. Whereas, the proceedings against the mother-in-law and father-in-law were quashed.

Karnataka HC first judgement on black magic act, “Plain and Simple Marital Discord Dressed with Black Magic” Karnataka HC Quashes FIR; Clears Mother-in-law in Dowry Case.

In a reported judgment passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, in July 2024, delivered a common order on a Criminal Petition and two Writ Petitions. The cases involved allegations of dowry harassment, theft, attempted murder, and practices under the Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act, 2017.

Brief Background of the Cases:

The disputes began with the wife filing a complaint alleging dowry harassment and cruelty by her husband and mother-in-law under Sections 498A and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the husband and mother-in-law for offenses under Sections 498A, 504, read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the 1961 Act. The husband and mother-in-law challenged these proceedings in a Criminal Petition before the High Court of Karnataka. 

Subsequently, the husband filed a private complaint against the wife. This complaint led to the registration of a criminal case for offenses under Sections 380, 411, 506, 307, 511, and 34 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act, 2017. The allegations included theft and attempted murder (allegedly through black magic). The Wife approached the  High Court of Karnataka seeking to quash the said proceedings. 

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Hon’ble Justice Nagaprasanna observed that while the complaint and charge sheet did not indicate specific offenses against the mother-in-law, there were clear allegations and ingredients of offenses against the husband. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in  KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR, which cautioned against implicating relatives based on general and omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes, the court quashed the proceedings against the mother-in-law. However, the court held that the husband would have to face a trial due to the serious allegations against him, and thus dismissed the petition concerning him.

Turning to the writ petition filed by the wife, represented by Advocate Mr Nagaraj Ravikumar, challenging the case involving theft, attempted murder, and black magic, the court concluded that the husband’s complaint was a “counter-blast” to the case registered by the wife. The court noted the significant delay (in years) in complaining about the alleged thefts.

Crucially, the court examined the allegations related to attempted murder through black magic and the applicability of the Black Magic Act, and noted them to be “completely vague” and lacking any ingredients that would constitute an offense under the Black Magic Act. The court emphasized that there was no act performed, nor an attempt to perform any of the ingredients listed in the Schedule.

The court further found that the allegations related to theft and attempted murder under the IPC also lacked the necessary ingredients. The court stated that a “plain and simple marital discord is dressed with black magic, theft, and attempt to murder.”

The court concluded that allowing the criminal case to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in patent injustice.

Conclusion: The court allowed the writ petition filed by the wife, quashing the FIR in its entirety.

Karnataka HC Orders Speedy Disposal of Suit, Noting Alleged Delay by Plaintiffs and Senior Citizen Defendant

The High Court of Karnataka, in its judgment in April 2025, directed the District and Sessions Court (Trial Court), Bengaluru, to hear and dispose of a Suit filed in the year 2018 within a year. The petitioners, represented by Advocate Mr. Nagaraj Ravikumar, sought expeditious disposal of the suit before the Trial Court and contended that the plaintiffs in the suit were delaying the proceedings by seeking adjournments.

The court, presided over by the Hon’ble Mr Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad, noted that issues had been framed and the matter was posted for the plaintiffs’ evidence, taking into account that the petitioner was a senior citizen. Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one year from the date of receipt of the order.

With this direction, the writ petition was disposed of.

Karnataka High Court Slams Procedural Lapses, Quashes Wildlife Case Against Petitioner/Accused.

In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnatak on 19^th November 2025, quashed the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 20483/2022 against the petitioner accused of possessing the skull with the antler of a Sambar Deer on 12 August 2021 near Bharat Restaurant on BEL Main Road. The petitioner had been charged under multiple provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, including Sections 2(2), 2(16), 2(31), 2(32), 2(36), 9, 39, 40, 44, 48, 48A, 49B, read with Sections 50, 51, 55, 56, 58(C)(J).

The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that, under Section 50(8) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, a Wildlife Offence Report (WLOR) must be registered at the very outset before any search warrant is issued or any search and seizure operation is undertaken. He pointed out that the Forest Officials failed to comply with this mandatory requirement and, instead of registering a WLOR based on the alleged credible information, proceeded directly to conduct the search, arrest, and seizure. Counsel further submitted that this departure from the statutory procedure, along with the failure to adhere to the Wildlife Crime Investigation Handbook, demonstrated a clear misuse of authority. 

The petitioner’s counsel further submitted that the conduct of the department amounted to a clear abuse of the investigative process. The seized material had been forwarded for extended forensic examination, including DNA sequencing, age estimation, and analysis of the ballistic trauma; however, these crucial examinations were still pending when the authorities proceeded to file the final investigation report. Notwithstanding the incompleteness of the forensic record and the internal inconsistencies evident in the preliminary FSL findings, the department neither awaited the outstanding reports nor directed any further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Instead, the matter was prematurely advanced for prosecution. Counsel contended that advancing the proceedings while essential scientific evidence was outstanding demonstrated a predetermined approach, vitiating the integrity of the investigation and reinforcing the broader pattern of procedural non-compliance.

The High Court agreed with this submissions, holding that the manner in which the officers bypassed the WLOR process and the statutory safeguards under Section 50(8) amounted to an abuse of the process of law, thereby vitiating the entire investigation and justifying the quashing of the proceedings.

Relying on its earlier ruling in Crl.P. No. 10873/2023, the Court reiterated that a search conducted in violation of Section 50(8) renders the proceedings invalid. As the search and seizure in this case were not carried out in accordance with law, the Court quashed the proceedings in their entirety, while directing that the seized articles remain in State custody. 

This ruling reinforces that strict adherence to due process is mandatory, even in serious wildlife offence cases, and that procedural lapses cannot form the basis of a sustainable prosecution.

Karnataka High Court Orders Issuance of Passports to Minor Children Amid Matrimonial Dispute

In a significant ruling concerning the fundamental right to travel of minor children entangled in a matrimonial dispute, the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru has directed the re-issuance and fresh issuance of passports to two minor children. The decision was premised on the father’s “No Objection” and the mother’s formal undertaking to comply with existing visitation orders.

Background of the Case

The matter arose out of two separate writ petitions—one filed on behalf of the minor daughter seeking renewal/re-issuance of her passport, and the other on behalf of the minor son seeking issuance of a fresh passport. Both petitions were subsequently clubbed and heard together by the High Court of Karnataka.

The petitioners, aged 7 years and 3 years respectively, were represented by their mother, who is their natural guardian. The relief sought was a writ of mandamus directing the Regional Passport Office (RPO) to process the passport applications in a time-bound manner.

Objections by the Passport Authority

The Regional Passport Office had declined to process the applications on the ground that the applicants were minors and that the applications were not accompanied by Annexure-C and Annexure-D, as prescribed under the Passport Rules. Annexure-D specifically requires a joint undertaking by both parents.

The Court noted that there existed an inter se matrimonial dispute between the parents concerning custody and visitation of the children.

Impleadment of the Father and Undertakings

Initially, the father was not arrayed as a party to the writ petitions. Considering that any order passed would directly affect his rights, the Court directed that he be impleaded and afforded an opportunity to be heard.

Upon appearance, counsel for the father submitted that he had no objection to the re-issuance of the daughter’s passport and the issuance of a fresh passport for the son, subject to the mother strictly complying with the visitation directions issued in the pending Guardians and Wards (G&WC) proceedings before the Additional Principal Family Judge, Bengaluru.

The mother, in turn, filed an affidavit of undertaking, unequivocally agreeing to comply with the visitation directions passed in the pending G&WC proceedings.

Findings and Directions of the Court

Taking into consideration the father’s consent and the mother’s undertaking, the High Court held that there was no impediment to directing the Passport Authority to process the applications.

Accordingly, both writ petitions were allowed, and the Court issued the following directions:

• ​The respondents were directed to process the applications for re-issuance and issuance of the passports of the minor children.
• ​The entire process was ordered to be completed within 10 days from the date on which both parents file a declaration in terms of Annexure-D, duly signed by them.
• ​The Court further clarified that in the event of any violation or non-compliance with the undertaking furnished under Annexure-D, the Regional Passport Office would be at liberty to cancel, impound, or revoke the passports and initiate appropriate criminal proceedings under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Passports Act, 1967.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the Karnataka High Court’s pragmatic approach in balancing parental disputes with the best interests and fundamental rights of minor children. By facilitating consensus between the parents, the Court ensured that administrative formalities do not unjustly impede a child’s right to obtain travel documents, notwithstanding ongoing matrimonial litigation.

Family Property Feud Between Brothers: Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings for Offences under IPC for Wrongful Restraint, Intentional Insult with Intent to provoke breach of the peace and Criminal Intimidation, holding that the essential ingredients were absent.

In Writ Petition No. 8063 of 2025 (GM-RES), decided on 9 December 2025, the Karnataka High Court exercised its extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings arising from a family property dispute between two brothers. The Court held that the allegations were vague, ingredient-deficient, and demonstrably rooted in a civil dispute, rendering continuation of the prosecution, an abuse of process of law.

Factual Background

The proceedings arose from a complaint relating to an alleged incident dated 1 February 2024, during a spot inspection conducted by officials of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) for the purpose of preparation of a joint khata. The complainant alleged that the petitioner wrongfully restrained him, abused him in filthy language, criminally intimidated him, and assaulted him with a stone.

Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation, however, the complainant admitted in a further statement that no injury had been sustained on account of the alleged assault. Consequently, the investigating agency deleted the offence under Section 324 IPC, substantially altering the foundation of the prosecution.

Case-Specific Judicial Findings on Statutory Ingredients

Section 341 IPC – Wrongful Restraint (Read with Section 339 IPC)

The Court reiterated that wrongful restraint requires voluntary obstruction preventing a person from proceeding in a direction in which he has a lawful right to proceed. The complaint failed to disclose any factual particulars regarding the manner, duration, or nature of such obstruction. Mere usage of the expression “restrained,” without factual narration, was held insufficient. Relying on Pushpavati Medar v. State of Karnataka, the Court held that omnibus allegations cannot satisfy the statutory threshold under Sections 339 and 341 IPC.

Section 504 IPC – Intentional Insult with Intent to Provoke Breach of Peace

The Court held that Section 504 IPC requires proof of intentional insult coupled with mens rea to provoke breach of peace or commission of an offence. The complaint neither specified the words allegedly used nor disclosed circumstances indicating such intent.Bald allegations of abuse, particularly in family property disputes, were held to be legally unsustainable.

Section 506 IPC – Criminal Intimidation (Read with Section 503 IPC)

The Court emphasised that criminal intimidation can be made out only if the complaint discloses a specific threat intended to cause alarm or coercion, as contemplated under Section 503 IPC. In the absence of particulars regarding the nature of the threat or its intended consequence, Section 506 IPC could not be attracted. The Court held that strained relations or verbal altercations cannot, by themselves, constitute criminal intimidation.

Effect of Deletion of Section 324 IPC

The deletion of Section 324 IPC was accorded determinative significance. Once the allegation of physical assault was found to be false, the substratum of the prosecution collapsed. The Court held that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained by retaining minor offences when the principal allegation fails.

Supreme Court Jurisprudence on Quashing of Criminal Proceedings

The High Court’s reasoning is firmly anchored in settled Supreme Court jurisprudence governing the exercise of inherent powers to prevent abuse of criminal process.

In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Supreme Court authoritatively laid down categories of cases where criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed, including instances where the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence or where proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides and instituted for an ulterior purpose. The present case squarely falls within these parameters, as the allegations were vague, ingredient-deficient, and rooted in a civil property dispute.

In Mohammed Wajid v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court reiterated that offences of criminal intimidation must strictly satisfy the ingredients of Section 503 IPC and that courts must not permit prosecution to continue on the basis of general or sweeping allegations. The Karnataka High Court expressly applied this principle while examining the charge under Section 506 IPC.

Civil Nature of the Dispute and Abuse of Process

The Court noted that the dispute between the parties was admittedly civil in nature, pertaining to family property and administrative issues relating to khata entry. Significantly, the very subject matter of the dispute had been resolved by the BBMP through issuance of joint khata in favour of both parties. This subsequent development further reinforced the absence of any continuing criminal element and demonstrated that the criminal proceedings were instituted to exert pressure in a civil dispute.

Conclusion and Order

Holding that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the Karnataka High Court quashed the entire proceedings pending before the XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

Significance of the Ruling

The judgment reaffirms the settled legal position that criminal law must not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon for settling civil or family property disputes. By insisting on strict compliance with statutory ingredients and by refusing to countenance vague or omnibus allegations, the High Court has reinforced the judiciary’s role in preventing misuse of the criminal justice system.