KUNAL TULSIYAN/SWETHAMBARAS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62398
CRL.P No. 2685 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010137042021




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

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

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2685 OF 2021


BETWEEN:

1. KUNAL TULSIYAN/SWETHAMBARAS
S/O TULASIAN SHYAM SUNDER
AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS.

2. NISHA TULASIAN
W/O TULASIAN SHYAM SUNDER
AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS.

3. SHYAM SUNDER TULASIAN
S/O JAGAMOHAN TULASIAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

ALL ARE R/AT GOKULDHAM
No.4975, 3RD MAIN
2ND CROSS, S S LAYOUT
B BLOCK, SOUTHERN EXTENSION
DVG, DAVANGERE – 577004.

…PETITIONERS










Digitally
signed by
DEVIKA M
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA



(BY SRI. VISHNUMURTHY, ADV.)
AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WOMEN’S POLICE STATION
DAVANAGERE
REP BY SPP HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE -560001.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62398
CRL.P No. 2685 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010137042021


2. SMT. MADHUSRI
D/O UTTAM CHAND R. JAIN
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT No.69, “MANMADHU”
A V K COLLEGE ROAD
P J EXTENSION
DAVANGERE - 577002.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV., FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.119/2020 FOR AN
OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 504, 323 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.4 OF
D.P. ACT AND U/S 3(1)(r)(s)(w) OF SC/ST ACT OF WOMEN
P.S., DAVANAGERE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED
2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
DAVANAGERE & ETC.

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 learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1
and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62398
CRL.P No. 2685 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010137042021


2. The prayer is sought for quashing FIR registered in
Crime No.119/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections
488A, 504 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC, Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and so also Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (‘the SCST Act’ for short).
2. The main accusation made in the complaint against
the petitioners is that marriage of petitioner No.1 and
complainant was solemnized 7 years ago. As a result, she
became pregnant and both of them lived together for a period
of 5 years without any harassment and she gave birth to a child
Vivan. When she was sent to delivery, her husband did not turn
up and so also, their family members. When she tried to
contact them over phone, they did not receive the phone call
and blocked her phone number and she went to the house to
verify the same, but they locked the house, even though they
were in the house and someone came and told that they are
not in the house. On 05.11.2020, again she went to the house
to ask her husband and in-laws and at that time, he declared
that already he got the divorce and why she came and abused

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62398
CRL.P No. 2685 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010137042021


in filthy language and held her hair, abused and assaulted and
when she questioned the same, again abused in filthy language
and questioned the paternity of the child and pushed her from
the house holding her hair and also abused taking her mother's
caste name as Nayaka i.e., (ST community) and father’s caste
name as ‘Jain’ and questioned to which community she belongs
and abused in filthy language taking her caste name. Hence,
action is sought based on the complaint and on the complaint,
the above offences are invoked and matter is under
investigation.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that already divorce was granted in favour of petitioner
No.1-husband and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of
petitioner No.1 and the very complaint itself disclose that they
lived happily for a period of 5 years and according to the
complainant, dispute arose only after she gave birth to a child
and no such allegation during her stay abusing her taking caste
name and only with an intention to bring the petitioners in a
criminal case, false allegations are made and no such incident
has taken place and the same is also within the four walls i.e.,

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62398
CRL.P No. 2685 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010137042021


in the house of the accused. Hence, it will not attract Special
enactment. Apart from that, afterthought, the present
complaint is filed and it will not attract the offences under
Section 504 of IPC or any other offences. Hence, it is a fit case
to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-
complainant would submit that M.C.No.203/2019 is very clear
that no notice was served on the complainant and an ex-parte
order was obtained. Hence, an appeal is filed before this Court
i.e., M.F.A.No.7350/2019 and the contention that already
divorce was granted cannot be accepted, since it is not
contested. Apart from that, the counsel would vehemently
contend that specific accusation is made that on 05.11.2020
when she went to the house of petitioners, abused her in filthy
language taking the caste name and not only abused taking the
caste name in filthy language and also held her hair and pulled
her from the house. Hence, the matter requires investigation.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2-complainant, while quashing the FIR, the Court has to

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62398
CRL.P No. 2685 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010137042021


look into the contents of complaint. It is not in dispute that
both the petitioner No.1 and complainant married 7 years ago
and both of them led their life for about 5 years without any
trouble. But, differences arose between both of them after she
gave birth to a child and specific accusation of complainant is
that her husband and family members did not turn up to see
the child and when she made an attempt to approach them, in
the first attempt, she failed. Then again, when she went on a
particular date, at that time, abused in filthy language,
assaulted and pushed her from the house holding her hair.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that even assuming that such incident has taken place
within the four walls of the house, in view of the judgment of
Hitesh Verma’s
Apex Court in case, it will not come within the
definition of SCST Act. However, in the case on hand, specific
accusation is made in the complaint that the petitioners taking
the caste name of mother and father of the complainant
questioned her to which religion she belongs and whether such
incident has taken place or not is a matter of investigation.
When specific accusation is made mentioning the date of

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62398
CRL.P No. 2685 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010137042021


incident and abuse made holding her hair and pushed her from
the house and also assaulted her, whether such an incident has
taken place or not is the domain of the Investigating Officer to
investigate the matter whether it comes within the purview of
Special Enactment or ingredients of other offences and the
same has to be probed by the Investigating Officer.
7. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in
DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL vs. STATE OF
GUJARAT AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 3 SCC 104 , the
Apex Court held that High Court should not venture to come in
the way of investigation and the Investigating Officer has to
unearth the truth. When such being the case, it is a matter of
investigation by the Investigating Officer. Hence, at this
juncture, the Court cannot quash the proceedings and it is the
domain of the Investigating Officer to probe whether the
incident has taken place within the four walls of the house and
whether it attracts SCST Act or not and he has to invoke the
appropriate offences, if really the said incident has taken place
as alleged in the complaint.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62398
CRL.P No. 2685 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010137042021


8. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER

dismissed.
The criminal petition is



Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE


ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16