SRI. DHANANJAYA .V. @ VEERESH vs STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59322
CRL.P No. 1141 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010062902024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1141 OF 2024


BETWEEN:

1.
SRI. DHANANJAYA .V. @ VEERESH
SON OF VEERABHADRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

2.
SMT. RATHNAMMA,
WIFE OF VEERABHADRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

3.
SRI. VEERABHADRAIAH
SON OF LATE VEERABHADREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

4.
SRI. KUMAR @ KUMARASWAMY V.
SON OF SRI. VEERABHADRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,











Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA


ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.745, SRI ADISHAKTI
MAHADESHARA TEMPLE ROAD,
BEHIND GANESH TEMPLE ROAD,
KONANKUNTE, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
DODDAKALASANDRA
BENGALURU 560062.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VENKATA REDDY C.M., ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59322
CRL.P No. 1141 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010062902024



AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
RAMANAGARA WOMEN POLICE STATION
RAMANAGARA,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE 560001.

2. NETHRAVATHI S
W/O DHANANJAYA @ VEERESH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
WARD NO.19, BEHEIND
HECHIN FACTORY,
MADDURAMMA BEEDI,
KANAKAPURA,
RAMANAGARA 562 117.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHESH P., HCGP FOR R-1;
R-2 SD)


THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FIR IN CRIME NO.147/2023, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGAR
DISTRICT REGISTERED BY RAMANAGAR WOMEN P.S, FOR
OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 498A, 504 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF
D.P. ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59322
CRL.P No. 1141 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010062902024



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash
the FIR against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime
No.147/2023 dated 10.12.2023 registered by Ramanagara
Women Police Station against the petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending on
the file of Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Kanakapura,
Ramanagara Dist.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police on
10.12.2023, alleging that her marriage with petitioner No.1 was
solemnized on 13.05.2013 at Srikrishna Kalyana Mantapa,
Kanakapura. At the time of marriage, petitioner Nos.1 to 3
demanded dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and 40 grams of
gold, which was fulfilled by the parents of respondent No.2.
Further, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 demanded a site at Bengaluru as
additional dowry. After the marriage, respondent No.2 started

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59322
CRL.P No. 1141 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010062902024



residing in her matrimonial home at Konanakunte along with
her husband and in-laws. Initially, the marital relationship was
cordial for few months. Thereafter, petitioner Nos.1 to 3
allegedly started harassing respondent No.2, demanding a site
at Bengaluru as additional dowry. It is further alleged that
petitioner No.1 was addicted to alcohol, consumed the same on
a daily basis and subjected respondent No.2 to harassment. He
also allegedly developed an extra-marital relationship with one
Lakshmi. When respondent No.2 brought the said aspect to the
notice of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, instead of advising petitioner
No.1, they supported his conduct. It is further alleged that, in
October 2020, the petitioners thrown respondent No.2 out of
the matrimonial home and instructed her to return only if she
could arrange a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry. Having left
with no other option, respondent No.2 started residing at her
parental home. In June 2023, she made another attempt to
rejoin the matrimonial home; however, the petitioners allegedly
abused her and sent her back, once again demanding additional
dowry. Aggrieved by the alleged acts of the petitioners,
respondent No.2 lodged the complaint. On the basis of the said

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59322
CRL.P No. 1141 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010062902024



complaint, respondent No.1-Police registered an F.I.R. in Crime
No.147/2023 for the aforementioned offences. Aggrieved by
the same, petitioners preferred this petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
4. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that respondent No.2 has lodged a false complaint
against the petitioners, despite having resided in her
matrimonial home since 2015. He further submits that
respondent No.2 had earlier filed a Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition seeking maintenance, which came to be dismissed for
non-prosecution, and subsequently lodged the present
complaint in the year 2023. He contended that, except for
omnibus allegations, no specific allegations are made against
the petitioners to attract the offences punishable under Section
498A, 323 and 504 of the IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. Hence, he submits that continuation of
the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount
to an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, he prays
to allow the petition.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59322
CRL.P No. 1141 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010062902024



5. This prayer is opposed by the learned HCGP on the
ground that the investigation is at nascent stage and the
complaint discloses prima facie allegations against the
petitioners. He submits that the petitioners allegedly harassed
respondent No.2 from the inception of the marriage until 2023,
demanding additional dowry in the form of cash and a site at
Bengaluru. It is further alleged that the petitioners failed to
provide proper food to respondent No.2. In the above
circumstances, he contends that the impugned FIR does not
warrant interference at this stage. Accordingly, he prays to

dismiss the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration both on the
submission and perused the entire charge sheet materials.
7. As could be gathered from the complaint averments, it is
specifically alleged that, at the time of marriage, the petitioners
received cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and gold ornaments as dowry.
Subsequently, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 allegedly subjected
respondent No.2 to harassment, demanding additional dowry
either in the form of cash or a site at Bengaluru. It is further
alleged that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 failed to provide proper food

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59322
CRL.P No. 1141 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010062902024



to respondent No.2 and that petitioner No.1 developed an
extra-marital relationship with one Lakshmi. The aforesaid
allegations prima facie disclose the involvement of petitioner
Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 in the alleged crime. Admittedly,
respondent No.2 was residing with petitioner Nos.1 to 3,
namely, her husband and in-laws. Therefore, the allegations
made against them warrant investigation by the Police. At this
nascent stage of the proceedings, this Court cannot anticipate
the outcome of the investigation. Hence, in my considered
view, the complaint and FIR disclose prima facie material
warranting investigation against accused Nos.1 to 3.
8. However, insofar as petitioner No.4/accused No.4, who is
the brother-in-law of respondent No.2, is concerned, except for
certain bald and omnibus allegations, the complaint does not
contain any specific averments explaining the nature of the
alleged harassment attributed by him. In such circumstances,
the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of K. Subba Rao v. State
of Telangana, represented by its Secretary, Department
of Home and Others, reported in 2024 INSC 960 , and Dara
Lakshmi Narayan v. State of Telangana, reported in

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59322
CRL.P No. 1141 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010062902024




(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 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

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59322
CRL.P No. 1141 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010062902024



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.”

9. The aforesaid judgment clearly lays down the principle
that, in matrimonial disputes, all the relatives of the husband
cannot be prosecuted in the absence of specific and distinct
allegations against them. In the present case, the allegations
made against the petitioner No.4 are omnibus in nature and are
not supported by any reliable material available in the charge-
sheet. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that continuation
of the proceedings against petitioner No.4/accused No.4 would
amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER

i. The criminal petition is allowed in respect of
petitioner No.4/accused No.4 and dismissed in

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59322
CRL.P No. 1141 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010062902024



respect of petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1
to 3.

ii. The proceedings against petitioner
No.4/accused No.4 in Crime No.147/2023
dated 10.12.2023 registered by Ramanagara
Women Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 of
IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961, pending on the file of Prl.Civil Judge
(Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Kanakapura,
Ramanagara Dist., is hereby quashed.

iii. However, it is made clear that proceedings
shall continue against petitioner Nos.1 to
3/accused Nos.1 to 3.

SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE











GPG/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16