DR MADHUNIRANJANA SWAMY M vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59593
CRL.P No. 7725 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010432102024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7725 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

1. DR MADHUNIRANJANA SWAMY M.
S/O. SHIVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO. 48,
VINAYAKA KRUPA,
MAHAVEERA NILAYA,
KUNIGAL ROAD,
IN FRONT OF SIDDARUDA MATT,
AMARAJYOTHINAGARA,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
PIN-572 101.

2. SMT. MAHALAKSHMAMMA
W/O. SHIVAIAH. P,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO. 48,
VINAYAKA KRUPA,
MAHAVEERA NILAYA,
KUNIGAL ROAD,
IN FRONT OF SIDDARUDA MATT,
AMARAJYOTHINAGARA,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
PIN-572 101.

3. SRI. SHIVAIAH
S/O. LATE POOJAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO. 48,










Digitally signed by
PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59593
CRL.P No. 7725 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010432102024



VINAYAKA KRUPA,
MAHAVEERA NILAYA,
KUNIGAL ROAD,
IN FRONT OF SIDDARUDA MATT,
AMARAJYOTHINAGARA,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
PIN-572 101.

4. SMT. SOWMYA
W/O. KUMARA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO. 48,
VINAYAKA KRUPA,
MAHAVEERA NILAYA,
KUNIGAL ROAD,
IN FRONT OF SIDDARUDA MATT,
AMARAJYOTHINAGARA,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
PIN-572 101.

5. SRI. KUMARA SWAMY
LATE KARIYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO. 48,
VINAYAKA KRUPA,
MAHAVEERA NILAYA,
KUNIGAL ROAD,
IN FRONT OF SIDDARUDA MATT,
AMARAJYOTHINAGARA,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
PIN-572 101.

6. SMT. ASHWINI
W/O. MOHANKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO. 48,
VINAYAKA KRUPA,
MAHAVEERA NILAYA,
KUNIGAL ROAD,
IN FRONT OF SIDDARUDA MATT,

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59593
CRL.P No. 7725 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010432102024



AMARAJYOTHINAGARA,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
PIN-572 101.

7. SRI. MOHAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO. 48,
VINAYAKA KRUPA,
MAHAVEERA NILAYA,
KUNIGAL ROAD,
IN FRONT OF SIDDARUDA MATT,
AMARAJYOTHINAGARA,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
PIN-572 101.

8. SMT. VASUDHA
W/O. KEERTHI MITHRA. D,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO. 48,
VINAYAKA KRUPA,
MAHAVEERA NILAYA,
KUNIGAL ROAD,
IN FRONT OF SIDDARUDA MATT,
AMARAJYOTHINAGARA,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
PIN-572 101.

9. SRI. KEERTHI MITHRA
S/O. DURGAIAH K.B
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO. 48,
VINAYAKA KRUPA,
MAHAVEERA NILAYA,
KUNIGAL ROAD,
IN FRONT OF SIDDARUDA MATT,
AMARAJYOTHINAGARA,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
PIN-572 101.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MADHUSUDHAN M.N, ADVOCATE)

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59593
CRL.P No. 7725 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010432102024



AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WOMEN POLICE STATION,
TUMAKURU, PIN-572 101,

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU, PIN-560 001.

2. SMT. PRIYANKA. V. R.
W/O. MADHUNIRANJANA SWAMY. M. S.,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO. 48,
VINAYAKA KRUPA,
MAHAVEERA NILAYA,
KUNIGAL ROAD,
IN FRONT OF SIDDARUDA MATT,
AMARAJYOTHINAGARA,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
PIN-572 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAVEED S, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. KRISHNAKUMAR K.K, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.126/2024
REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT POLICE/WOMEN
POLICE TUMAKURU AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, NOW
PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AT TUMAKURU, FOR OFFENSES P/U/S 498-
A,342,417,109,506 R/W 34 OF IPC, SEC. 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT,
ON THE COMPLAINT BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN SO FAR
AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, BY ALLOWING THIS
MEMORANDUM OF CRL.P.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59593
CRL.P No. 7725 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010432102024




ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking
to quash the entire proceedings in CC.No.126/2024 arising out
of Crime No.20/2024 registered by the 1st respondent
police/women police station, Tumakuru, against the petitioners,
pending on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, for offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 342, 417, 109, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, Sections 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 is the husband of
respondent No.2 - complainant. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 -
accused Nos.2 and 3 are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of
respondent No.2. Petitioner No.4 - accused No.4 is the sister-
in-law of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.5 - accused No.5 is
the husband of accused No.4. Petitioner No.6 - accused No.6 is
also the sister-in-law of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.7 -
accused No.7 is the husband of accused No.6 and petitioner
No.8 - accused No.8 is also the sister in law of respondent No.2

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59593
CRL.P No. 7725 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010432102024



and petitioner No.9 - accused No.9 is the husband of accused
No.8.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged a complaint against the petitioners on 30.01.2024
before the 1st respondent - police alleging that her marriage
was solemnized with accused No.1, who was a Dentist at
Malaysia. After marriage, accused No.1 received Rs.5 lakh cash
from the father of respondent No.2 and thereafter, left India
and settled in Malaysia and did not return to India. Thereafter,
it was revealed that accused No.1 had contracted second
marriage at Malaysia. However, respondent No.2 continued to
reside at her matrimonial home along with accused Nos.2 and 3
i.e., her in-laws and other accused. During her stay in
matrimonial home, petitioners harassed respondent No.2 both
physically and mentally without even providing her proper food
and they also demanded Rs.5 lakh additional dowry and asked
for 150 gms gold. As such, respondent No.2 started to reside
with her parents at her parental home. As such, she lodged a
complaint before the respondent-police against the petitioners.
On the strength of the said complaint, FIR came to be

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59593
CRL.P No. 7725 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010432102024



registered in Crime No.20/2024 dated 30.01.2024 against the
petitioners for the aforementioned offences. After the
registration of FIR, respondent No.1-police conducted
investigation and laid charge-sheet against the petitioners and
the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case. Aggrieved
by the same, the petitioners preferred this petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
HCGP and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. The primary contention advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that soon after the marriage, accused No.1
- husband of respondent No.2 left India and settled in Malaysia.
However, respondent No.2 was residing along with accused
Nos.2 and 3 i.e., her in-laws. Even though respondent No.2
was taken care of, she lodged a complaint on mere suspicion
that accused No.1 contracted second marriage at Malaysia
without any proof or authentic document to the said effect.
Nonetheless, as far as other petitioners i.e., accused Nos.4 to 9
are concerned, they were residing separately in their respective
houses and except bald and omnibus allegations, there are no

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59593
CRL.P No. 7725 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010432102024



such specific averments in the complaint or in the charge sheet
in respect of their involvement in the aforesaid offences. As
such, continuation of proceedings against them is nothing but
abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the
petition.

6. Learned HCGP as well as learned counsel for respondent
No.2 opposed the aforesaid prayer and contended that since
the charge sheet has been filed by the Police and the statement
of witnesses reveals the involvement of these petitioners in the
alleged crime, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot
be quashed, at this stage. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the
petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the documents available on record.
8. As could be gathered from records, the relationship
between the parties are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute
that accused No.1 after marriage left respondent No.2 at the
matrimonial home and went to Malayasia and thereafter, did

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59593
CRL.P No. 7725 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010432102024



not return to India. As such, respondent No.2 was residing
along with accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e., her in-laws. During her
stay, it is alleged that they demanded Rs.5 lakh dowry and 150
gms gold and for the same, they harassed respondent No.2,
both physically and mentally and they even failed to provide
proper food and basic requirements to respondent No.2. The
complaint averments is supported by the statement of material
witnesses. On careful scrutiny of entire charge sheet material,
prima facie case has been made out against accused Nos.1 to
3. However, as regards accused Nos.4 to 9 are concerned,
except some bald and omnibus allegations, there is no specific
date, time and the manner in which they harassed respondent
No.2. Moreover, admittedly, accused Nos.4 to 9 are residing
separately at their respective home.

9. 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 - 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 relatives of the husband should

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59593
CRL.P No. 7725 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010432102024



not be roped-in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless
specific instance of their involvement in the crime are made
out.
10. 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 allegation 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.
11. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dara
Lakshmi Narayan vs. State of Telangana - 2025 3 SCC
735 , held in paragraph 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:59593
CRL.P No. 7725 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010432102024



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

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59593
CRL.P No. 7725 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010432102024



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. In the instant case, a bare perusal of charge sheet
materials clearly shows that the allegations made by the
complainant/respondent No.2 against petitioner Nos.4 to 9 -
accused Nos.4 to 9 are vague and omnibus. There is no such
allegation that the family members harassed the complainant.
The complainant has not provided any specific details or
described any particular instance of harassment. She has not
mentioned the time, date, place or a manner in which the
alleged harassment occurred or the details of the nature of
demand or its particulars. Therefore, the charge sheet lacks
concrete and precise allegations against petitioner Nos.4 to 9.
The mere general allegations of harassment without pointing
out the specific details would not be sufficient to continue
criminal proceedings against any person.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59593
CRL.P No. 7725 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010432102024



13. It is settled position of law that, Courts have to be careful
and cautious in dealing with complaint and must take pragmatic
realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial
disputes, where the allegations have to be scrutinized with
great care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage
of justice and abuse of process of Court.
14. Hence, even if the entire allegations in the charge sheet
are taken on its face value, there is no such prima facie case
made out against petitioner Nos.4 to 9. As such, continuation of
proceedings against petitioner Nos.4 to 9 i.e., accused Nos.4 to
9 is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER

i. The petition in respect of petitioner
Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 is
dismissed and proceedings against them
shall continue. It is made clear that the
observations made against accused Nos.1 to
3 shall not come in the way of the Trial Court
while considering the proceedings.

ii. The petition in respect of petitioner
Nos.4 to 9 /accused Nos.4 to 9 is

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59593
CRL.P No. 7725 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010432102024



allowed in part. The proceedings against
them in C.C.No.126/2024 arising out of
Crime No.20/2024 registered by the 1st
respondent - Police for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 34, 417,
109, 506 read with 34 of IPC, Sections 3 and
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, presently pending
on the file of learned II Addl. Senior Civil
Judge & JMFC, Tumakuru, are hereby
quashed.



SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE






HKV/PKS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29