Introduction:

The Karnataka High Court, in Devendra Bhatia v. State of Karnataka & Others [2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 95], refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused by his own son of murdering his wife. The case revolved around the mysterious death of the petitioner’s wife, who allegedly fell from the balcony of their 16th-floor apartment. While the husband claimed it was an accident, their son, fourteen days after the incident, lodged a complaint alleging that his father had pushed his mother off the balcony. The trial court had already dismissed the petitioner’s discharge application, prompting him to approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. However, the High Court ruled that the statements of the son and daughter, recorded under Section 164 CrPC, contained vivid details sufficient to warrant a full-fledged trial. The Court emphasized that it was not its role to examine evidence at this stage and that the petitioner must prove his innocence during trial.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha, contended that the case was based on mere speculation and that the allegations were improbable. He argued that no father would push his wife to death in front of their children and that the son, with whom he shared a strained relationship, was acting out of personal vendetta. The petitioner further challenged the transfer of the investigation from one police station to another, asserting that such power vested only in the court and not with the Commissioner of Police. Additionally, he submitted that neither Section 302 (murder) nor Section 498A (cruelty) of the IPC was applicable, as there was no evidence of dowry-related cruelty.

Conversely, the prosecution, represented by Additional SPP B.N. Jagadeesha, maintained that the transfer of the investigation was lawful under Section 36 CrPC, as it was within the same jurisdiction. The prosecution also pointed to the statements of the son and daughter, both of whom provided detailed accounts of the father’s actions and behavior leading up to the incident. It was argued that these statements, recorded under Section 164 CrPC, clearly established a prima facie case for murder and cruelty. The complainant’s counsel, Advocate Manu P Kulkarni, highlighted that the absence of dowry demand did not negate the possibility of cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

Judgement:

After analyzing the arguments, Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the allegations against the petitioner were serious and supported by the statements of both children. The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the son’s complaint was motivated by personal enmity, reasoning that the daughter’s independent testimony also pointed to the father’s culpability. The Court further dismissed the petitioner’s objections regarding the transfer of the investigation, holding that it was a procedural aspect that did not vitiate the case. Noting that the petitioner’s defense could only be tested through a full trial, the Court refused to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. It concluded that granting relief at this stage would amount to obstructing justice and allowing the accused to escape trial based on technicalities.