LexRENUKA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1936 : 2025 INSC 596 Renuka v. State of Karnataka and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2309 of 2025) 29 April 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Appellant-wife has challenged the impugned order whereby the High Court quashed proceeding u/ss.498-A, 324, 355, 504, 506 r/w. s.149 of the Penal Code, 1860 against the respondent-husband. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A, 324, 355, 504, 506 r/w. s.149 – Allegation that respondent-husband and other in-laws harassed appellant-wife physically and mentally and also demanded dowry – Appellant started residing at her parental home – On 27.10.2020, respondent-husband and other in-laws went to parental home of appellant and threw chilli powder in her eyes, abused and assaulted her relatives with slippers and stones – Neighbours, including one S, intervened and rescued them – FIR registered – The in-laws assailed the proceeding before the High Court – The Single Judge of the High Court quashed the proceeding only against the septuagenarian parents-in-law – Subsequently, respondent-husband prayed for quashing before another co-ordinate single bench which came to be allowed – Correctness: Held: In the instant case, while one judge refused to quash proceeding against the in-laws, inter alia, observing wound certificate demonstrates the appellant was assaulted and suffered simple injuries, another judge by the impugned order quashed the proceeding against respondent-husband holding the medical certificate was not consistent with the allegations in the complaint i.e. the wound certificate does not show the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon – Having perused the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that judge erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR/Chargesheet – The Judge compared the nature of assault described in the FIR vis-à-vis wound certificate * Author [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1937 Renuka v. State of Karnataka and Anr. and came to a finding that the allegations are untrue – In doing so, the Judge had undertaken a mini trial to quash the proceeding which is impermissible in law – There is no hesitation in holding that the allegation of throwing chilli powder and assault on the appellant by respondent-husband and other in-laws is not only supported by the wound certificate which discloses simple injury but also the statement of the neighbour-S – Given this situation, it cannot be said the case falls in the category of those cases where there is no legal evidence or evidence is “manifestly and clearly inconsistent” with the accusation levelled in the chargesheet – Thus, the impugned order is set aside and proceeding against the respondent-husband is revived. [Paras 8, 9, 12] Case Law Cited R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [1960] 3 SCR 388 : 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Harassment; Dowry; Assault; Septuagenarian parents-in-law;Wound certificate; Medical certificate; Inherent powers; Quashing of criminal proceedings; Mini trial; Nature of assault. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2309 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 16.02.2024 of the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in CRP No. 101591 of 2021 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Ms. Rudrali Patil, Shaantanu Devansh, Suhas Hosamani, Ms. Rushika Patil, Sabeel Ahmed, Anshuman. Advs. for the Respondents: Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv., D. L. Chidananda, M/s. Nuli & Nuli, Abhishek Kanyalur, Abhishekh Singh. 1938 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Joymalya Bagchi, J. 1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2. Appellant-wife has challenged the impugned order whereby the High Court quashed proceeding in CC No. 163 of 2021 dated 03.02.2021 under Sections 498-A, 324, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 against the respondent-husband. 3. The aforesaid case was registered on the written complaint lodged by the appellant-wife alleging as follows:- (i) Marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized in 2012. (ii) Two children were born to the couple. (iii) Respondent-husband developed illicit relation with one Bharati Halamani Tamadaddi and the latter abused the appellant in filthy language four months prior to the incident. She reporte
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.