SRI SHARATH ALVA P vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58551
CRL.P No. 4384 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010202232026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4384 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SHARATH ALVA P,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O SANJEEV ALVA 1-271,
SOWPARNIKA, HARADI,
NEAR MOOKAMBIKA GAS AGENCY,
PUTTUR DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574201.
2. SRI SANJEEV ALVA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
S/O P RAMANNA ALVA, NO.1-229,
SOWPARNIKA, HARADI,
NEAR MOOKAMBIKA GAS AGENCY,
PUTTUR DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574201.
3. SMT. MEENA S ALVA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
W/O SANJEEV ALVA, NO.1-229,
SOWPARNIKA, HARADI,
NEAR MOOKAMBIKA GAS AGENCY,
PUTTUR DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574201.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SUYOG HERELE E,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH DK WOMEN P S,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BENGALURU- 560001.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58551
CRL.P No. 4384 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010202232026
2. SMT. SOWMYA RAI B.B,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
W/O SHARATH ALVA NO. 109,
THAVOOR VILLAGE, BHAGAMANDALA HOBLI,
MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU - 571247.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGHARISH G S,HCGP FOR R1,
SRI SANDEEP C T, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH
THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.11/2026 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C
COURT PUTTUR FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S
498A,354,504,506,34 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT
REGISTERED BY D.K WOMEN P.S PRODUCED AS DOCUMENT
NO.1 AND 2.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, the learned HCGP for respondent No.1. and
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This petition is filed to quash the FIR and
complaint in Crime No.11/2026 pending on the file of
JMFC, Puttur for the offences punishable under Sections
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58551
CRL.P No. 4384 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010202232026
498A, 354, 504, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read
with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that, petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioners
No.2 and 3 are the in-laws of the second respondent
No.2/complainant and parents of petitioner No.1.
4. It is the submission that marriage took place on
24.04.2016. The respondent No.2 left the company of the
husband/petitioner No.1 in December, 2016 and the
petitioner No.1 filed a petition seeking dissolution of
marriage and same is still pending consideration.
5. The complaint is filed in the year 2026, i.e. 9
years after wife left the company.
6. It is further urged that, there is no proper
explanation for the delay of 9 years in lodging the
complaint and allegations against the parents are also
vague, as such, the learned counsel would submit that the
petition be allowed and the proceedings be quashed.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58551
CRL.P No. 4384 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010202232026
7. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel
would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in
1
Charul Shukla vs State of UP and others .
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submit that
the contents of the complaint disclose cognizable offence
and in the complaint, it is stated that there was a demand
for dowry, and the demand was met. However, still
petitioner No.1 and his parents insisted for dowry and they
have harassed the complainant.
9. It is also alleged in the complaint that there is
life threat. It is also alleged that despite the complainant's
parents came and requested the petitioners not to oust
the complainant from the house, the petitioners have
ousted the complainant from their house, as such,
complainant had no other option but to leave in the house
of the parents.
10. It is also stated that the complainant was
threatened not to file any police complaint and there was a
1
(2026) SCC Online SC 476
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58551
CRL.P No. 4384 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010202232026
life threat in case the police complaint was lodged. And
said threat is sought to be the reason for the delay.
11. The Court has considered the contentions raised
at the Bar and perused the records.
12. It is noticed that the divorce petition is filed in
the year 2016. The respondent No.2 has filed objection to
the said petition. In the statement of objection filed by the
respondent No.2, the respondent - wife has made
allegations relating to the dowry harassment by the
petitioners.
13. Reference is also made to the alleged verbal
abuse and assault on the complainant in the statement of
objection.
14. The Court has also considered the judgment
cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners where it is
held that frivolous complaint against the husband and the
members of the family of the husband cannot be
registered, cannot be investigated in case of matrimonial
dispute sought to be given a colour of a criminal case.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58551
CRL.P No. 4384 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010202232026
15. The Court has noticed the factual background in
the aforementioned case.
16. It is indeed true that the cases against the
family members of the husband are on the rise where the
dispute between the husband and wife is given a colour of
a criminal case. However, there cannot be the straight
jacket formula to quash the complaint filed by the wife
against the family members in case of dispute between
husband and wife. Each case has to be considered and
evaluated based on the contents of the complaint.
17. After going through the contents of the
complaint, the Court has noticed there are serious
allegations against petitioner No.1 as well as petitioners
No.2 and 3. Though there is delay of 9 years in lodging the
complaint, what is required to be noticed is in the year
2016 the husband has filed a petition seeking dissolution
of marriage and in the year 2020, the wife has filed
statement of objection and in the statement of objection
there are allegations relating to demand of dowry and
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58551
CRL.P No. 4384 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010202232026
physical and mental harassment to the
complainant/second respondent by all the family
members.
18. As held by the Apex Court in Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra , at
this stage the Court is not on the merits of the allegation.
The Court is only required to consider whether the
allegations, if true, constitute the offence and the matter
requires investigation to find out whether the allegations
are true or not. Hence, the Court is of the view that the
matter requires investigation.
19. However, while investigating the matter, the
police shall also take into consideration as to whether
there is justification in making allegations against the
parents of accused No.1 more so in a situation where
there is delay of 9 years in lodging the complaint.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58551
CRL.P No. 4384 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010202232026
20. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
brn
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4