SRI VIJAYA MOGAVEERA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59356
CRL.P No. 2227 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010111232021




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH


CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2227 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. VIJAYA MOGAVEERA,
S/O ANNAPPA THINGALAYA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT SHANTI NIVASA,
MEPU, KOTESHWARA,
KOTESHWARA VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576222.

2. SRI. RAMESH DEVADIGA,
S/O SOORA DEVADIGA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT MARKODU KOTESHWARA,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576222.
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KUNDAPURA POLICE STATION,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576221,
REP. BY HIGH COURT GOVT. PLEADER,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.









Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59356
CRL.P No. 2227 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010111232021


2. SMT. CHAITHRA,
D/O BOJA MOGAVEERA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT HODROLI,
BEEJADI VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576222.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. THEJAS RAI K., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN
ST
C.C.NO.2350/2020 FILED BY THE 1 RESPONDENT POLICE
BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
KUNDAPURA AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
respondent No.1/State.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant
by filing a private complaint before the learned Magistrate is
that, in paragraph No.2 of the private complaint, an
allegation is made against her husband for having demanded

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59356
CRL.P No. 2227 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010111232021


an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- at the time of marriage and also
35 grams of gold and the same was refused by her parents,
but it was subsequently settled for 23 grams of gold. An
allegation is made that after one year when accused No.1
came to India from abroad, at that time, he abused her in a
filthy language and used to assault her and he was there in
the village for a period of one month and thereafter, again
he went back and he was not in talking terms with her. Even
after she gave birth to a child, he did not come and see the
child and that on 16.07.2020, she went to her husband
house, but he was not having any cordiality with her and he
was having an illicit relationship with one Christian lady Soni,
who is a resident of Kalyanpura. That on 19.07.2020, he
came along with his friend i.e., accused No.2 and abused in a
filthy language. However, in paragraph No.7 of the complaint
while making an allegation, allegation is made including both
accused Nos.1 and 2 that they caused the life threat and left
the house. Based on this complaint, matter was referred to
the police and the police investigated the matter and filed
the charge-sheet.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59356
CRL.P No. 2227 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010111232021


3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would
vehemently contend that the allegations made in the private
complaint and also the statement of witnesses is omnibus
and only general allegations are made and specific
allegations are not made against the petitioners. The learned
counsel in support of his arguments relies upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SIVARAMAN
NAIR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KERALA AND
ANOTHER reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 672 and
brought to the notice of this Court the discussion made in
paragraph Nos.22 to 24, wherein a specific contention was
taken in respect of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3, including the in-
laws and the Apex Court comes to the conclusion that the
FIR does not attribute to them any specific act of demand,
threat or physical assault on any identifiable occasion and
hence, quashed the same.
4. The learned counsel also relies upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DARA LAKSHMI
NARAYANA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59356
CRL.P No. 2227 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010111232021


ANOTHER reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735 and brought to
the notice of this Court paragraph No.20, wherein an
observation is made that a bare perusal of the FIR shows
that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and
omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed
her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so,
respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or
described any particular instance of harassment and hence,
quashed the same.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State would submit
that apart from the averments made in paragraph No.7 of
the complaint, further statement of the victim was recorded
as per Annexure-E, wherein the complainant in her further
statement made an allegation against accused No.2, who
accompanied accused No.1, that he also abused in a filthy
language stating as to why she was staying in her parental
house without leading her life along with her husband and
caused the life threat. The learned counsel would submit

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59356
CRL.P No. 2227 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010111232021


that there is a specific allegation against accused No.2 also
that he had abused in a filthy language and also caused the
life threat and hence, the offence under Sections 504 and
506 of IPC are invoked against petitioner No.2 and specific
allegations are made against petitioner No.1, who is the
husband. The learned counsel would submit that the
principles laid down in the judgments relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioners will not come to the aid of
the petitioners, wherein specific observation is made that in
the FIR no such allegations are made regarding demand as
well as causing of threat and also the harassment.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1/State and also considering
the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra,
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
Court has to look into the contents of the complaint. The
document of Annexure-D is the complaint, wherein specific
allegations are made that the marriage of the complainant

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59356
CRL.P No. 2227 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010111232021


was solemnized with accused No.1 in 2013. The specific
allegations are made against accused No.1 that he had
demanded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and so also 35 grams
of gold at the time of the marriage and the same was
refused by her parents. But when accused No.1 caused the
threat that he is going to break the marriage proposal, they
agreed to pay 23 grams of gold and spent the money for the
marriage and conceded the demand of dowry. In paragraph
No.3 of the complaint, specific allegations are made against
accused No.1 that when he came back to India from abroad,
he abused the complainant in a filthy language and also
assaulted and he was not in talking terms with her. Specific
allegations are made that he abused that she is having an
illicit relationship and that the child was not born to him. On
16.07.2020, the complainant along with her child went to his
house, but he was not having any cordiality with her.
Specific allegations are made against petitioner No.1 i.e.,
husband that he was having an illicit relationship with one
Soni of Kalyanpura, who belongs to Christian religion.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59356
CRL.P No. 2227 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010111232021


7. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioners
brought to the notice of this Court that an omnibus allegation
is made against both accused Nos.1 and 2 in paragraph No.7
of the complaint. But the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State brought to the
notice of this Court Annexure-E further statement of the
complainant. The Court has to take note of the specific
allegations made in the private complaint. Only the name of
accused No.2 is added in the complaint that both accused
Nos.1 and 2 caused the life threat. But specific allegations
are made against accused No.1 that he abused and assaulted
her. There is an improvement in the further statement of
the complainant as per Annexure-E that accused No.2 also
abused her. CW5 and CW6 in their statement state that they
have witnessed the incident, but the same is not stated by
CW1 complainant that at the time of abuse and also causing
of life threat, CW5 and CW6 were present. It is nothing but a
paperwork made by the police for false implication of
accused No.2 and the same is not spoken by the complainant
in the original complaint filed before the Court and it is an

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59356
CRL.P No. 2227 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010111232021


improvement during the course of investigation to add
accused No.2.
8. Having taken note of the principles laid down in
the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the same is applicable to accused No.2, wherein
in both the judgments the Apex Court held that in the
complaint no specific allegations are made against the
accused. But the very contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that an omnibus allegation is made against
accused No.1 cannot be accepted. In paragraph Nos.2, 3, 4,
5 and 6 of the complaint, specific allegations are made that
accused No.1 not only demanded and accepted the dowry,
but also subjected her for physical assault as well as abuse
in a filthy language. Specific allegation is also made that
accused No.1 is having an illicit relationship with one lady.
When such being the material available on record, the
judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners will not come to the aid of accused No.1. Hence,

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59356
CRL.P No. 2227 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010111232021


I do not find any ground to quash the proceedings insofar as
accused No.1 is concerned.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed in part.

(ii) The proceedings initiated against accused
No.2 in C.C.No.2350/2020, is quashed.

(iii) The petition in respect of accused No.1 is
rejected.


Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE


MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27