Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9763 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. BASAVARAJA S M
S/O. MARI VENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT SHIVANASANDRA VILLAGE,
MAGADI TALUK, SHIVANASANDRA,
RAMANAGAR - 562 131
2. SMT. JAMAMMA
W/O. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.303/2,
MPM AND ITI LAYOUT,
MALLATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 056.
3.
NARASIMHA MURTHY @ MURTHY
S/O. MARI VENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O. SHIVANASANDRA VILLAGE,
MAGADI TALUK, SHIVANASANDRA,
RAMANAGAR - 562 132
4.
SOMEGOWDA S M
S/O. MARI VENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT BYLAKONENAHALLI,
LAKSHMIPURA, BENGALURU
NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562123
5.
LINGARAJU
S/O. MARI VENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 47, TATAGUNI VILLAGE,
Digitally signed
by PRASHANTH
N V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
NEAR REDDY HOTEL,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 062
6. SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O. MARI VENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT SHIVANASANDRA VILLAGE,
MAGADI TALUK, SHIVANASANDRA,
RAMANAGAR - 562 131
7. MARI VENKATAIAH
S/O. LATE. BASAVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
R/AT SHIVANASANDRA VILLAGE,
MAGADI TALUK, SHIVANASANDRA,
RAMANAGARA - 562 131
8. ARASAPPA,
S/O. VENKATARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT RAVUTHANAHALLI,
KITTANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 562 130
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KARUNAKARA P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE BY PSI KUDUR POLICE
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560001
2. SMT. REKHA B
W/O. BASAVARAJA S M,
D/O. BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.2,
TH ND
4 CROSS, 2 MAIN ROAD,
AZAD NAGAR, CHAMARAJPET,
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
BENGALURU - 560 018
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1
SRI. K.A. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR IN CRIME NO.98/2017 OF KUDUR POLICE STATION,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, PENDING BEFORE I ACJ (JR.DN) AND JMFC
COURT, MAGADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
498A OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 8 in Crime
No.98/2017 of Kudur Police Station, Ramanagara District,
pending on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge
(Jr.Dn) and JMFC Court, Magadi, Ramanagara District,
registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of
Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') and under Sections 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, 'the D.P. Act'), are
seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against
them.
2. Heard Sri Karunakara P., learned counsel for the
petitioners, Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri K.A.
Chandrashekara, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused
the materials on record.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners have made out any
grounds to allow the petition and to quash the
criminal proceedings initiated against them?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for
the following:
REASONS
4. The materials on record disclose that, respondent
No.2 married accused No.1 on 29.01.2012. Thereafter, they
started residing in the matrimonial house for a period of four
months. Since she was pregnant, she left the matrimonial
house and went to her parental home on 04.06.2012. It is
stated that, even after giving birth to a child on 18.11.2012,
she had not returned to the matrimonial house. Therefore, a
legal notice dated 06.02.2014 came to be issued by accused
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
No.1 calling upon respondent No.2 to come back to the
matrimonial house. In-spite of that, there is no reply. It is
thereafter, M.C.No.79/2014 was filed by accused No.1 seeking
dissolution of marriage. Respondent No.2 did not contest the
matter and has remained exparte. The said petition came to be
allowed granting divorce vide decree dated 12.04.2012. But it
was an exparte decree. Later, respondent No.2 filed an
application seeking to recall the order and decree and to
restore M.C.No.79/2014 for fresh consideration. The said
application was allowed and M.C.No.79/2024 was restored on
file. Now the decree of divorce was granted vide order and
decree dated 28.02.2025. It is said to be challenged by
respondent No.2 before this Court in MFA.No.3015/2025.
5. In the meantime, on 27.03.2017, private complaint
came to be filed by respondent No.2 against accused Nos.1 to 8
alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section
498-A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. The
allegations are very serious in nature.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
6. Hon'ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and
1
others Vs. State of Telangana and another observed as
under:
"28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by
way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty
inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family,
ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in
recent years, as there have been a notable rise in
matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by
growing discord and tension within the institution of
marriage, consequently, there has been a growing
tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the
IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the
husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and
generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not
scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and
an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a
wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to
invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and
his family in order to seek compliance with the
unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court
has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the
husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima
facie case against them."
(emphasis supplied)
7. It also refers to its earlier decision in Preeti Gupta
2
Vs. State of Jharkhand and held in paragraph 31 as under:
"31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of
Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to
be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
1
2024 INSC 953
2
(2010) 7 SCC 667
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
complaints and must take pragmatic realties into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives
who had been living in different cities and never visited or
rarely visited the place where the complainant resided
would have an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complainant are required to be
scrutinized with great care and circumspection."
(emphasis supplied)
3
8. In Smt. Neera Singh Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) ,
the Delhi High Court has made the following observations:
”3. A perusal of the complaint would show that as
per allegations dowry demand was made even before
marriage i.e. at the time of engagement and an AC was
demanded from her father by her in-laws and her father
had assured that AC would be given at the time of
marriage. However, she told her father You have given
car and AC at the demand of in laws, what will happen if
they demand a flat tomorrow?. Despite her this
conversation with her father and despite her knowing that
dowry demand had already been made, she married in
the same family irrespective of the fact that she was well-
educated lady and was an engineer and her brother was
in police. In fact, these kinds of allegations made after
breakdown of the marriage show the mentality of the
complainant. I consider where these kinds of allegations
are made, the police should simultaneously register a
case under Dowry Prohibition Act (in short the 'Act')
against the parents of the complainant as well, who
married their daughter despite demand of dowry. Section
3 of the Act prohibits giving and taking of dowry. If a
woman of grown up age and well educated gets married
to a person despite dowry demand, she and her family
becomes accomplaice in the crime under Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3
138 (2007) DLT 152
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
4. Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about
the amount spent on marriage and other ceremonies and
on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is made of
spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the
source of income and how funds flowed. I consider time
has come that courts should insist upon disclosing source
of such funds and verification of income from tax returns
and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules
under Dowry Prohibition Act and should not entertain any
complaint, if the rules have not been complied with.. XXX"
(emphasis supplied)
There was reference to Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition
(Maintenance of list of presents to the Bride and Bride groom)
Rules, 1985.
9. With these decisions, the position of law is very clear
that, although Section 498A IPC was enacted to address cruelty
against married women, courts must remain vigilant against its
misuse through vague and generalized allegations arising from
matrimonial disputes, and the prosecution should not proceed
where there are no prima facie materials available on record. It
is further clear that, allegations against relatives, particularly
those residing separately or having limited interaction with the
complainant, require more careful scrutiny and cautious
evaluation, and they must not be roped in at the whims and
fancies of the complainant with the intent to cause harassment.
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
The allegations relating to dowry made after breakdown of
marriage must be examined with circumspection, and that
exaggerated or unsupported claims regarding dowry or
marriage expenses should be verified in accordance with the
provisions and procedural requirements under the Dowry
Prohibition Act and the Rules.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has produced
the copy of the complaint dated 11.09.2014 said to be lodged
by respondent No.2 with Chamarajapete Police Station marked
as per Ex.P5 before the Trial Court. Even though this complaint
runs into 3 pages, there is no whisper regarding demand for
dowry or additional dowry in the form of cash or gold
ornaments or site. There is reference to the legal notice dated
06.02.2014 issued by accused No.1 when she was in parental
house. There is also reference to the notice received on
04.09.2014 by the Civil Court at Magadi. According to which,
accused No.1 has sought for divorce mutually. Immediately
thereafter i.e. on 11.04.2014, the said complaint came to be
filed which was registered as NCR.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
11. It is pertinent to note that in the earlier complaint
dated 11.09.2014, there is no reference to demand or
acceptance of dowry by the accused or ill-treatment given by
any of the accused. The said complaint is only against accused
No.1 and not against the other accused. Even there is no
allegations to invoke Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act or Section
498-A of IPC. Now the question arises as to why such serious
allegations are made in the present complaint, which is filed on
27.03.2017. Obviously, it was with an intention to gain support
in MC.No.79/2014 which was restored on file by recalling
exparte judgment and decree passed on 12.02.2015.
12. Even though the learned counsel for respondent No.2
has produced the copy of the CD along with the charge sheet
for having recorded conversation, admittedly the said
conversation was not between respondent No.2 and her family
members held with any of the accused to evidence either
demand or acceptance of dowry or regarding the harassment or
cruelty meted to respondent No.2. Under such circumstances, I
am of the opinion that there are no prima-facie materials to
constitute the offence. Hence, the continuation of the criminal
proceedings is in abuse of process of law and the same is liable
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the
petitioners in Crime No.98/2017 of Kudur Police
Station, Ramanagara District, pending on the
file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge
(Jr.Dn), registered for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A of IPC and under Sections
3 and 4 of D.P. Act, is hereby quashed.
SD/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
MKM
CT:VS
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9763 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. BASAVARAJA S M
S/O. MARI VENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT SHIVANASANDRA VILLAGE,
MAGADI TALUK, SHIVANASANDRA,
RAMANAGAR - 562 131
2. SMT. JAMAMMA
W/O. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.303/2,
MPM AND ITI LAYOUT,
MALLATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 056.
3.
NARASIMHA MURTHY @ MURTHY
S/O. MARI VENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O. SHIVANASANDRA VILLAGE,
MAGADI TALUK, SHIVANASANDRA,
RAMANAGAR - 562 132
4.
SOMEGOWDA S M
S/O. MARI VENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT BYLAKONENAHALLI,
LAKSHMIPURA, BENGALURU
NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562123
5.
LINGARAJU
S/O. MARI VENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 47, TATAGUNI VILLAGE,
Digitally signed
by PRASHANTH
N V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
NEAR REDDY HOTEL,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 062
6. SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O. MARI VENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT SHIVANASANDRA VILLAGE,
MAGADI TALUK, SHIVANASANDRA,
RAMANAGAR - 562 131
7. MARI VENKATAIAH
S/O. LATE. BASAVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
R/AT SHIVANASANDRA VILLAGE,
MAGADI TALUK, SHIVANASANDRA,
RAMANAGARA - 562 131
8. ARASAPPA,
S/O. VENKATARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT RAVUTHANAHALLI,
KITTANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 562 130
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KARUNAKARA P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE BY PSI KUDUR POLICE
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560001
2. SMT. REKHA B
W/O. BASAVARAJA S M,
D/O. BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.2,
TH ND
4 CROSS, 2 MAIN ROAD,
AZAD NAGAR, CHAMARAJPET,
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
BENGALURU - 560 018
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1
SRI. K.A. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR IN CRIME NO.98/2017 OF KUDUR POLICE STATION,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, PENDING BEFORE I ACJ (JR.DN) AND JMFC
COURT, MAGADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
498A OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 8 in Crime
No.98/2017 of Kudur Police Station, Ramanagara District,
pending on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge
(Jr.Dn) and JMFC Court, Magadi, Ramanagara District,
registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of
Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') and under Sections 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, 'the D.P. Act'), are
seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against
them.
2. Heard Sri Karunakara P., learned counsel for the
petitioners, Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri K.A.
Chandrashekara, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused
the materials on record.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners have made out any
grounds to allow the petition and to quash the
criminal proceedings initiated against them?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for
the following:
REASONS
4. The materials on record disclose that, respondent
No.2 married accused No.1 on 29.01.2012. Thereafter, they
started residing in the matrimonial house for a period of four
months. Since she was pregnant, she left the matrimonial
house and went to her parental home on 04.06.2012. It is
stated that, even after giving birth to a child on 18.11.2012,
she had not returned to the matrimonial house. Therefore, a
legal notice dated 06.02.2014 came to be issued by accused
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
No.1 calling upon respondent No.2 to come back to the
matrimonial house. In-spite of that, there is no reply. It is
thereafter, M.C.No.79/2014 was filed by accused No.1 seeking
dissolution of marriage. Respondent No.2 did not contest the
matter and has remained exparte. The said petition came to be
allowed granting divorce vide decree dated 12.04.2012. But it
was an exparte decree. Later, respondent No.2 filed an
application seeking to recall the order and decree and to
restore M.C.No.79/2014 for fresh consideration. The said
application was allowed and M.C.No.79/2024 was restored on
file. Now the decree of divorce was granted vide order and
decree dated 28.02.2025. It is said to be challenged by
respondent No.2 before this Court in MFA.No.3015/2025.
5. In the meantime, on 27.03.2017, private complaint
came to be filed by respondent No.2 against accused Nos.1 to 8
alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section
498-A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. The
allegations are very serious in nature.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
6. Hon'ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and
1
others Vs. State of Telangana and another observed as
under:
"28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by
way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty
inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family,
ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in
recent years, as there have been a notable rise in
matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by
growing discord and tension within the institution of
marriage, consequently, there has been a growing
tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the
IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the
husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and
generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not
scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and
an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a
wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to
invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and
his family in order to seek compliance with the
unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court
has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the
husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima
facie case against them."
(emphasis supplied)
7. It also refers to its earlier decision in Preeti Gupta
2
Vs. State of Jharkhand and held in paragraph 31 as under:
"31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of
Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to
be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
1
2024 INSC 953
2
(2010) 7 SCC 667
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
complaints and must take pragmatic realties into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives
who had been living in different cities and never visited or
rarely visited the place where the complainant resided
would have an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complainant are required to be
scrutinized with great care and circumspection."
(emphasis supplied)
3
8. In Smt. Neera Singh Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) ,
the Delhi High Court has made the following observations:
”3. A perusal of the complaint would show that as
per allegations dowry demand was made even before
marriage i.e. at the time of engagement and an AC was
demanded from her father by her in-laws and her father
had assured that AC would be given at the time of
marriage. However, she told her father You have given
car and AC at the demand of in laws, what will happen if
they demand a flat tomorrow?. Despite her this
conversation with her father and despite her knowing that
dowry demand had already been made, she married in
the same family irrespective of the fact that she was well-
educated lady and was an engineer and her brother was
in police. In fact, these kinds of allegations made after
breakdown of the marriage show the mentality of the
complainant. I consider where these kinds of allegations
are made, the police should simultaneously register a
case under Dowry Prohibition Act (in short the 'Act')
against the parents of the complainant as well, who
married their daughter despite demand of dowry. Section
3 of the Act prohibits giving and taking of dowry. If a
woman of grown up age and well educated gets married
to a person despite dowry demand, she and her family
becomes accomplaice in the crime under Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3
138 (2007) DLT 152
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
4. Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about
the amount spent on marriage and other ceremonies and
on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is made of
spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the
source of income and how funds flowed. I consider time
has come that courts should insist upon disclosing source
of such funds and verification of income from tax returns
and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules
under Dowry Prohibition Act and should not entertain any
complaint, if the rules have not been complied with.. XXX"
(emphasis supplied)
There was reference to Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition
(Maintenance of list of presents to the Bride and Bride groom)
Rules, 1985.
9. With these decisions, the position of law is very clear
that, although Section 498A IPC was enacted to address cruelty
against married women, courts must remain vigilant against its
misuse through vague and generalized allegations arising from
matrimonial disputes, and the prosecution should not proceed
where there are no prima facie materials available on record. It
is further clear that, allegations against relatives, particularly
those residing separately or having limited interaction with the
complainant, require more careful scrutiny and cautious
evaluation, and they must not be roped in at the whims and
fancies of the complainant with the intent to cause harassment.
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
The allegations relating to dowry made after breakdown of
marriage must be examined with circumspection, and that
exaggerated or unsupported claims regarding dowry or
marriage expenses should be verified in accordance with the
provisions and procedural requirements under the Dowry
Prohibition Act and the Rules.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has produced
the copy of the complaint dated 11.09.2014 said to be lodged
by respondent No.2 with Chamarajapete Police Station marked
as per Ex.P5 before the Trial Court. Even though this complaint
runs into 3 pages, there is no whisper regarding demand for
dowry or additional dowry in the form of cash or gold
ornaments or site. There is reference to the legal notice dated
06.02.2014 issued by accused No.1 when she was in parental
house. There is also reference to the notice received on
04.09.2014 by the Civil Court at Magadi. According to which,
accused No.1 has sought for divorce mutually. Immediately
thereafter i.e. on 11.04.2014, the said complaint came to be
filed which was registered as NCR.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
11. It is pertinent to note that in the earlier complaint
dated 11.09.2014, there is no reference to demand or
acceptance of dowry by the accused or ill-treatment given by
any of the accused. The said complaint is only against accused
No.1 and not against the other accused. Even there is no
allegations to invoke Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act or Section
498-A of IPC. Now the question arises as to why such serious
allegations are made in the present complaint, which is filed on
27.03.2017. Obviously, it was with an intention to gain support
in MC.No.79/2014 which was restored on file by recalling
exparte judgment and decree passed on 12.02.2015.
12. Even though the learned counsel for respondent No.2
has produced the copy of the CD along with the charge sheet
for having recorded conversation, admittedly the said
conversation was not between respondent No.2 and her family
members held with any of the accused to evidence either
demand or acceptance of dowry or regarding the harassment or
cruelty meted to respondent No.2. Under such circumstances, I
am of the opinion that there are no prima-facie materials to
constitute the offence. Hence, the continuation of the criminal
proceedings is in abuse of process of law and the same is liable
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6104
CRL.P No. 9763 of 2017
HC-KAR
to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the
petitioners in Crime No.98/2017 of Kudur Police
Station, Ramanagara District, pending on the
file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge
(Jr.Dn), registered for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A of IPC and under Sections
3 and 4 of D.P. Act, is hereby quashed.
SD/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
MKM
CT:VS
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2