SMT. SHAKUNTHALA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60733
CRL.P No. 8622 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010510032019




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

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


CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8622 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. SHAKUNTHALA,
W/O JAYAGOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

2. SRI. JAYAGOPAL,
S/O LATE KADEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
TH
NO.18/1, SUMUKHA, 9 CROSS,
CHUCHAGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
KONANAKUNTE POST,
BENGALURU-560062.

(ABATED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 02.11.2026)

3. SMT. NISHKA RANI,
W/O VENUGOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
TH
NO.18/1, SUMUKHA, 9 CROSS,
CHUNCHAGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
KONANKUNTE POST,
BENGALURU-560062.

PRESENTLY: R/AT BERGSGATAN 2A LGH
1201, ESKILSTUNA SWEDEN, SWEDEN.

4. SRI. VENUGOPAL,
S/O GANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,









Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60733
CRL.P No. 8622 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010510032019


R/AT BERGSGATAN 2A LGH,
1201, ESKILSTUNA SWEDEN,
SWEDEN.
…PETITIONERS

(BY SMT. S.K.PRATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR
PETITIONER NOS.1, 3 AND 4;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 02.11.2026,
THE PETITION AGAINST PETITIONER NO.2 IS ABATED)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KONANAKUNTE POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU-560001.

2. SMT. ARCHANA R.,
W/O KOUSHIK J.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
TH
NO.18/1, SUMUKHA, 9 CROSS,
CHUCHAGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
KONANAKUNTE POST,
BENGALURU-560062.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. ROSHITH D., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE
KONANAKUNTE POLICE (RESPONDENT NO.1) IN
CR.NO.182/2019 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498A, 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
HONBLE 2ND ADDITIONAL CMM COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU CITY.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60733
CRL.P No. 8622 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010510032019


THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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, the learned
High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent
No.1/State and the learned counsel for respondent
No.2/complainant.
2. The prayer sought in the petition is to quash the
FIR in Crime No.182/2019 for the offences punishable under
Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. This petition is filed by in-laws, sister-in-law
and husband of sister-in-law of the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that there is no dispute with regard to the marriage of
the complainant and her husband was taken place in 2017 and
thereafter, the complainant/respondent No.2 had joined the
matrimonial home. Now petitioner No.2/father-in-law of the
complainant is no more and mother-in-law, sister-in-law and
the husband of the sister-in-law of the complainant are the
parties. The learned counsel would submit that the sister-in-

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60733
CRL.P No. 8622 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010510032019


law and her husband were residing at Sweden even prior to the
marriage of the complainant in 2017 and to that effect,
documents are produced before the Court. The learned counsel
also would submit that only omnibus allegations are made
against the petitioners that these petitioners had instigated the
husband of the complainant to leave her at her parental home.
The learned counsel also vehemently contend that it is an
admitted fact in the complaint itself that since she was not able
to live along with her in-laws, a separate house was taken by
her husband for rent of Rs.14,000/- per month next to two
lines of her in-laws house and they have happily spent time in
the said house. That only allegation in the complaint is that,
thereafter all of them conspired with her husband to drop her
to her native place and except this allegation no other
allegations are made. The learned counsel would vehemently
contend that it is also an allegation that the gold ornaments
which were given at the time of marriage were also taken back.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State would submit that

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60733
CRL.P No. 8622 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010510032019


1 kg. gold ornaments were given at the time of marriage at the
insistence of the in-laws.
5. The learned counsel for respondent
No.2/complainant brought to the notice of this Court that only
500 grams of gold ornaments is with the complainant. The
learned counsel would contend that there is a clear harassment
even by the mother-in-law and hence, it is not a fit case to
continue the investigation by the police.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, the material placed before the Court is very
clear that the complaint was given on 24.06.2019 and marriage
was taken place on 05.05.2017. No doubt, in the complaint an
allegation is made that as per in-laws’ demand, they have
given 1 kg. of gold ornaments at the time of marriage and also
spent the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- for performing the
marriage. It is also not in dispute that immediately after the
marriage, the complainant went and stayed in the matrimonial
home. The very complaint clearly discloses that herself and her
husband were living separately by taking a house on rent for
Rs.104,000/- and both of them were living happily. But only a

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60733
CRL.P No. 8622 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010510032019


word is stated in the complaint that at the instigation of these
petitioners, her husband dropped her to her parental house.
The fact is that the complainant was living separately along
with her husband in a rented house and except the omnibus
allegation that these petitioners conspired with her husband to
drop her to her parental house, no other allegations are made.
In the complaint, it is stated that 500 grams of gold ornaments
were taken from the house.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to
the notice of this Court the statement made by the complainant
herself that she has taken back all her jewels and even in the
statement given the details of what are all the ornaments she
has taken back. When such being the case, it is nothing but
roping of all the family members in the case. The fact is that
sister-in-law and her husband were staying at Sweden even
prior to the marriage. The learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the State submits that they may be
making phone calls and instigating. The same cannot be
accepted when sister-in-law and her husband were staying in
Sweden prior to the marriage and the very hypothesis that they

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60733
CRL.P No. 8622 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010510032019


may have called and conspired with the husband cannot be
accepted. However, specific accusation is made against the
husband. Petitioner No.2/ father-in-law of the complainant is no
more and the case is abated. This petition is by mother-in-law,
sister-in-law and the husband of the sister-in-law and in the
absence of specific material against these petitioners, there
cannot be any criminal prosecution.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER

The petition is allowed and the registration of the
case against the petitioners in Crime No.182/2019 is
hereby quashed.


Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE


MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1