POORNACHANDRA M vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58979
CRL.P No. 1139 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010063692024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1139 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. POORNACHANDRA M
S/O MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE
TH
R/AT NO.785/10, 7 CROSS
SOLLAPURADAMMA BADAVANE,
NEAR VIDYANIKETHANA SCHOOL
SUNKADAKATTE
BANGALORE-560 091
2. MANJULA
W/O MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
HOUSEWIFE
TH
R/AT NO.785/10, 7 CROSS
SOLLAPURADAMMA BADAVANE,
NEAR VIDYANIKETHANA SCHOOL
SUNKADAKATTE
BANGALORE-560 091
3. MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O BYRAPPA
OCC: GOVT EMPLOYEE
TH
R/AT NO.785/10, 7 CROSS
SOLLAPURADAMMA BADAVANE,
NEAR VIDYANIKETHANA SCHOOL
SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE-560 091
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58979
CRL.P No. 1139 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010063692024
4. BHAVYA @ POOJA
W/O PRAVEEN
AGED ABOUT 27 YEAR
HOUSEWIFE
R/AT KOMMAGHATTA, KENGERI,
BENGALURU-560060
5. PRAVEEN
S/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE
R/AT KOMMAGHATTA, KENGERI,
BENGALURU-560 060
6. RANGASWAMY
S/O MALERAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
OCC RETIRED
TH
R/AT NO.511/28, 7 CROSS,
SOLLAPURADAMMA BADAVANE
NEAR VIDYANIKETHANA SCHOOL
SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE-560 091
7. MANJAMMA
W/O RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
HOUSEWIFE
TH
R/AT NO.511/28, 7 CROSS,
SOLLAPURADAMMA BADAVANE
NEAR VIDYANIKETHANA SCHOOL
SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE-560 091
8. YOGESH
S/O RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
OCC: DRIVER
TH
R/AT NO.511/28, 7 CROSS,
SOLLAPURADAMMA BADAVANE
NEAR VIDYANIKETHANA SCHOOL
SUNKADAKATTE BANGALORE-560 091
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58979
CRL.P No. 1139 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010063692024
9. ANUSUYA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/AT LAGGERE
BENGALURU-560 058
10. NAGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/AT DASARAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 057
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MRUTHYUNJAYA S MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION,
JAYANAGAR SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001
2. SMT POOJA C
W/O POORNACHANDRA M
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
OCC EMPLOYED IN PRIVATE FIRM
ST
R/O NO.42/43, 1 MAIN ROAD,
BDA LAYOUT, ERANNA GUDDA
RD
BSK 3 STAGE
BENGALURU-560 085
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAVEED S HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. V. LAVA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR REGISTERED BY THE
BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION IN CR.NO.292/2023,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58979
CRL.P No. 1139 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010063692024
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 307, 354A, 323, 324, 34 OF
IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT PENDING BEFORE THE
COURT OF THE 37TH A.C.M.M BENGALORE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking
to quash proceedings against the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to
10 in Crime No.292/2023 registered by Basavanagudi Women
Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A,
307, 354A, 323, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'the DP Act'), presently
pending on the file of 37th Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru (for short, 'the learned Magistrate').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police on
03.12.2023, alleging that her marriage with petitioner No.1-
accused No.1 was solemnized on 05.12.2022 at Bengaluru. At
the time of marriage, respondent No.2 and her parents
allegedly gave 50 grams of gold, 1 kg of silver and a sum of
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58979
CRL.P No. 1139 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010063692024
Rs.2,00,000/- in cash to petitioner No.1 and his parents
towards dowry. They also spent a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-
towards the wedding ceremony.
3. After the marriage, respondent No.2 started
residing in her matrimonial home along with petitioner Nos.1 to
3, and the marital relationship of respondent No.2 and
petitioner No.1 was cordial for a few days. Thereafter, the
petitioners allegedly started physically and mentally harassing
her, demanding additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is
further alleged that petitioner No.1, being the husband of
respondent No.2, subjected her to physical and mental
harassment and, owing to his bad vices, insisted her to bring
the demanded amount from her parental home. Petitioner
Nos.2 and 3, being her father-in-law and mother-in-law,
respectively, also allegedly subjected her to physical and
mental harassment and insisted her to repay the loan amount
obtained by petitioner No.1.
4. Further, it is alleged that petitioner No.5, being the
brother-in-law of respondent No.2, outraged her modesty and
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58979
CRL.P No. 1139 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010063692024
that petitioner No.1 forced her to engage in unnatural sexual
acts. When respondent No.2 brought these acts to the notice of
her father-in-law and mother-in-law i.e. petitioner Nos.2 and 3,
they allegedly supported petitioner No.1 and abused her in
filthy language. Unable to bear the alleged harassment,
respondent No.2 also attempted to commit suicide. Having left
with no other option, she left the matrimonial home and started
residing at her parental home, thereafter she lodged the
complaint before respondent No.1-Police.
5. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondent
No.1-Police registered an FIR against the petitioners, arraying
them as accused Nos.1 to 10. Aggrieved by the registration of
the FIR, the petitioners have preferred this petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties.
7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners is that, from the inception of the marriage,
respondent No.2 was unwilling to reside with petitioner No.1
i.e. her husband, and voluntarily left the matrimonial home
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58979
CRL.P No. 1139 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010063692024
without being subjected to any harassment by the petitioners.
He further contended that petitioner Nos.4 to 10, being the
relatives of petitioner No.1, have been falsely implicated in the
complaint, though they are in no way connected with the
matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent
No.2. Except for certain omnibus allegations, the complaint
does not contain any specific averments regarding the
individual acts allegedly committed by the petitioners. On these
grounds, the learned counsel prays to allow the petition.
8. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2 and
the learned HCGP opposed the prayer of the petitioners,
contending that the investigation is still at a nascent stage and
the police are yet to complete the investigation. They further
contended that, on perusal of the complaint averments, prima
facie allegations are forthcoming against the petitioners.
Accordingly, they sought dismissal of the petition.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submission made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the entire materials on record.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58979
CRL.P No. 1139 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010063692024
10. As could be gathered from the records, the
relationship between the parties is not in dispute. After the
marriage, respondent No.2 started residing in her matrimonial
home along with petitioner Nos.1 to 3-accused Nos.1 to 3. As
per the complaint averments, the marital relationship between
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 remained cordial only for
three days, after which petitioner Nos.1 to 3 allegedly started
subjecting respondent No.2 to physical and mental harassment,
demanding additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. Serious
allegations are forthcoming against petitioner No.1 that he was
indulging in bad vices and harassing respondent No.2 to bring
the additional dowry amount to repay the loan obtained by him.
It is further alleged that he forced respondent No.2 to engage
in unnatural sexual acts against her will. A specific allegation is
also forthcoming against petitioner No.5-accused No.5, who,
being the brother-in-law of respondent No.2, allegedly touched
her inappropriately.
11. Admittedly, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were residing in
the same house along with respondent No.2. When prima facie
allegations are forthcoming against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and 5,
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58979
CRL.P No. 1139 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010063692024
the same require investigation by respondent No.1-Police. At
this stage, this Court cannot undertake a detailed examination
of the allegations, and the FIR registered against petitioner
Nos.1 to 3 and 5 cannot be quashed.
12. As far as petitioner Nos.4 and 6 to 10 are
concerned, they are stated to be distant relatives of petitioner
No.1 and are not shown to be directly connected with the
matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent
No.2. Except for a general allegation that they instigated
petitioner Nos.1 to 3 to harass respondent No.2, no specific
allegations disclosing their involvement are forthcoming in the
complaint. In the absence of specific allegations indicating their
participation in the alleged offences, they cannot be roped in
the matrimonial dispute.
13. In such circumstance, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of K. Subba Rao vs. State of Telangana represented
by its Secretary, Department of Home and Others
reported in 2024 INSC 960 , has held that the Court should be
careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes
pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58979
CRL.P No. 1139 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010063692024
relatives of the husband should not be roped-in on the basis of
omnibus allegations unless specific instance of their
involvement in the crime are made out.
14. It is also settled position of law that if a person is
made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping
allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of
criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of process of the
Court. The Courts pose a duty to subject the allegations
levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out,
whether there is any gain of truth in the allegations or whether
they are made only with the sole object of involving certain
individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a
prosecution arise from a matrimonial dispute.
15. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dara
Lakshmi Narayan vs. State of Telangana reported in 2025
3 SCC 735 , held in para Nos.25 and 28 as under:
“ 25 . A mere reference to the names of family
members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial
dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active
involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-
recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58979
CRL.P No. 1139 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010063692024
there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of
the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of
a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping
accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularized allegations cannot form the basis for
criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such
cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal
process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent
family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to
6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1
have been living in different cities and have not resided in
the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent
No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal
prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the
process of the law in the absence of specific allegations
made against each of them.
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.”
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58979
CRL.P No. 1139 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010063692024
16. On careful consideration of the principles laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment and upon
applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the instant
case, I am of the considered view that the materials on record
do not disclose the commission of any offences by petitioner
Nos.4, 6 to 10 i.e., accused Nos.4, 6 to 10. Therefore,
continuation of the proceedings against them would amount to
an abuse of the process of law.
17. However, on perusal of the complaint averments,
there are prima facie allegations forthcoming against petitioner
Nos.1 to 3 and 5 i.e., accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5. Hence, the
allegations against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and 5 requires to be
tested in a full-fledged trial. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed in part .
ii. The petition in respect of petitioner Nos.4, 6
to 10/accused Nos.4, 6 to 10 is allowed .
iii. The petition in respect of petitioner Nos.1 to
3 and 5/accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 is
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58979
CRL.P No. 1139 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010063692024
dismissed and the proceedings against them
shall continue.
iv. The proceedings against the petitioner Nos.4,
6 to 10/accused Nos.4, 6 to 10 in Crime
No.292/2023 registered by Basavanagudi
Women Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 307, 354A,
323, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending on
the file of 37th Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.
v. It is made clear that the observations made
in this petition shall not come in the way
while disposing the matter before the trial
Court.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
CR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14