Karnataka High Court Declines To Quash Cruelty FIR Against Husband After Reading Couple's Chats, Says Pet Cat Attacking Wife Was A Stray Claim

In another matter involving a feline, the Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of cruelty by his wife. 

Earlier in its December 2024 interim order the court while staying the probe, had observed that the complaint was a narration of marriage and living together but the crux of the allegation is foundationed upon the squabble regarding the pet cat; it had then said that the allegation i that the husband takes care of the cat more than the wife. The wife after receiving notice moved a plea to vacate the stay and also filed her objections; the matter was thereafter heard. 

After hearing the parties, Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order on going through the entire complaint noted that a particular paragraph in the complaint is dedicated to the pet cat in the house "which always used to cause hurt to the wife".

While noting that this was the only stray paragraph, the high court said that the entire complaint  gave a vivid narration of what has transpired in one year of the couple's marriage.

Referring to the several WhatsApp chats appended to the statement of objections, the court said:

“They are so horrendous; they cannot be narrated in the order. Usage of profanities are clear in all the chats. The Whatsapp chats are also indicative of the fact of vagabondish lifestyle of the 1st petitioner/husband, as also the torture meted out by him to the complainant every time.”

The court further noted that in November last year the complainant wife had to get herself admitted to the hospital on account of an injury caused by the act of the husband. It said that as per the discharge summary the wife sustained injury in the right wrist and hand "due to assault and twisting by the 1st petitioner/husband". 

It thus added “The WhatsApp chats also indicate the torture meted out by the husband to the wife on demand of unnatural sex. With all these allegations, it becomes a matter of trial for the husband in the least to come out clean in a full-blown trial.”

Perusing the complaint the court said that it undoubtedly indicates the offence of cruelty, both mental and physical meted out on the complainant/wife by the husband/1st petitioner.

The court observed that all the offences–cruelty, hurt and voluntarily causing hurt–alleged are "prima facie present" in the case qua the husband. 

"Therefore, stay of investigation or obliteration of investigation qua the husband cannot at this juncture be considered even to be granted," it added. 

The court however said that the ingredients of offences alleged against the mother-in-law and father-in-law are not prima facie made out to allow continuance of further investigation against them. 

The court thus refused to quash the proceedings against the husband. With respect to the in-laws the court quashed the proceedings. The plea was thus partly allowed. 

Background

The accused husband and in-laws are charged for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 and 85 of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. They have approached the court seeking to quash the prosecution.

By way of an interim order last year the court had earlier stayed all investigation against the accused. On receipt of notice, the complainant (wife) preferred an application seeking vacation of interim order and also filed a statement of objections. In which it was submitted that the husband has indulged in betting, deliberately twisting the arm every time for which the complainant has to be hospitalized.

The counsel for the complainant took the court through discharge summary and the wound certificate, pictures, chats, whatapps messages with other women in the teeth of talks of marriage and even after the marriage. It was said that the husband has an affair outside the marriage with two or three women and used to indulge in beating the complainant every time.

Moreover, the crime was registered just 10 days prior to the grant of interim order in the case at hand and the investigation is at a very nascent stage. Thus it should be allowed.

Case Title: Manjunath V & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Counsel for petitioner: Advocate Keshav M Datar

Counsel for R1: Additional State Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha

Counsel for R2: Advocate R. Nagaraj

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 204

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.33819 OF 2024.