SEENAPPA P G vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59156
CRL.P No. 948 of 2025
®
CNR: KAHC010757192024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 948 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. SEENAPPA P G
S/O GANAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT, 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT, 1211,
NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE,
OPP MVJ COLLEGE,
CHANNAASANDRA, K,C,
CHANNASANDR,
BENGALURU-560067.
2. VENKATARAVANAMMA@ERROLLA RAVANAMMA,
D/O LEKKAPALLI GANAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF PALYAKERE VILLAGE,
AND POST, BEGEPPALI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
KARNATAKA STATE -563124
3. VENKATARAVANAPPA, G,
S/O CHINNAGANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO 390, A.K.G.COLONY
NEAR GANAGMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
VTC KADUGODI PLANTION SUB DISTRICT,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE-560067
4. MANJULAMMA @ MANJULA. R
W/O VENKATARAVANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT #1211, A.K.G COLONY
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59156
CRL.P No. 948 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010757192024
OPP MV) COLLEGE, CHANNASANDRA
KADUGODI PLANTATION, KADUGODI,
BANGALORE SOUTH PIN CODE 560067,
5. LAKKEPALLI GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT, PALYAKERE VILLAGE, AND POST
BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
KARANATAKA STATE, 563124
6. SUBBARAYAPPA
S/O DUGGEPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT, PALYAKERE VILLAGE, AND POST
BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
KARANATAKA STATE, 563124
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAY KISHAN SHARMA ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M CHENNAKRISHNAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHELURU POLICE STATION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISTRICT
PIN 562101.
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE 560001.
2. B.K. GAYATHRI
W/O SEENAPPA P.G
PALYAKERE COLONY VILLAGE,
AND POST
CHELURU TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRCT,
PIN CODE-563124
AND ALSO RESIDING AT
A) B. K. GAYATHRI
D/O KRISHNAPPA
BATALAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59156
CRL.P No. 948 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010757192024
LAND MARK NEAR NARASHIMHASWAMY TEMPLE
CHINTAHAMANI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN CODE-563123
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SANDESH P. NADIGER &
SRI. SANCHAN JAINANDAN., ADVOCATES FOR
SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND THE CHARGE SHEET
IN CRIME NO.30/2024 AND CC.NO.942/2024, FILE PENDING IN THE
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BAGEPALLI
NOW CASE IS STAGE HBC, FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148,
323, 498 (A), 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONOURABLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
BAGEPALLI BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND GRANT ANY OTHER
RELIEF/S IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
i. Quash the FIR and the charge sheet in Crime
No.30/2024 and Cc.No.942/2024, file pending in
the before the Honourable Civil Judge and JMFC at
Bagepalli now case is stage HBC, for offences p/u/s
143, 147, 148, 323, 498 (A), 504, 506 r/w 149 of
IPC and 3 and 4 of DP Act, pending on the file of
Honourable Civil Judge and JMFC at Bagepalli by
allowing this petition and grant any other relief/s in
the circumstances of the case.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59156
CRL.P No. 948 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010757192024
2. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2;
petitioner No.2 is his sister; petitioner No.3 is his
brother; petitioner No.4 is his co-sister; petitioner
No.5 is his father; and petitioner No.6 is a neighbour
of the petitioners.
3. Respondent No.2, wife of petitioner No.1, lodged a
complaint on 21.03.2024 alleging that her marriage
with petitioner No.1 had been solemnised on
08.08.2022 and that gold articles worth ₹2,52,472/-
had been furnished as dowry at the time of marriage.
It is further alleged that, upon coming to know that
petitioner No.1 was having an affair with petitioner
No.4, who is his sister-in-law, respondent No.2
prevailed upon petitioner No.1 to shift to Bengaluru.
A house was thereafter taken on lease, towards
which the father of respondent No.2 is stated to have
paid ₹5,00,000/-.
4. It is alleged that, despite shifting to Bengaluru, the
relationship between petitioner No.1 and petitioner
No.4 continued. When respondent No.2 raised the
issue, petitioner No.1 allegedly asked her to go to
her parental home, whereupon she left on
01.03.2024. As she did not receive any call from
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59156
CRL.P No. 948 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010757192024
petitioner No.1, she contacted him, following which a
panchayat was proposed to be held on 01.03.2024.
5. It is further alleged that, when respondent No.2 went
to the house of petitioner No.1 for the said purpose,
all the petitioners, along with a neighbour, assaulted
her. Petitioner No.2 is alleged to have hit respondent
No.2, pulled her hair and abused her. Petitioners
No.3, 4 and 5 are alleged to have pushed and kicked
her, torn her clothes and abused her. It is further
alleged that they brought petrol, poured it on
respondent No.2 and attempted to set her on fire. At
the same time, they are alleged to have snatched her
gold chain.
6. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime
No.30/2024 came to be registered by the Chellur
Police Station for offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 323, 498A, 504, 506 and 149 of the
IPC, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. After completion of
investigation, the police laid a charge sheet on
29.05.2024 for the aforesaid offences. The
petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of
the proceedings.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59156
CRL.P No. 948 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010757192024
7. The first submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners is that, in the further statement recorded
on 27.03.2024, respondent No.2 corrected the date
of marriage as 24.08.2015, instead of 08.08.2022,
as stated in the complaint. It is contended that the
discrepancy in the date of marriage casts doubt on
the allegations made in the complaint.
8. Secondly, learned counsel submits that, insofar as
the gold articles allegedly furnished as dowry are
concerned, a portion of the consideration for their
purchase was paid by petitioner No.1. In this regard,
he relies upon the bill dated 09.08.2022 for a sum of
₹1,78,000/-, out of which petitioner No.1 is stated to
have paid ₹26,000/-. He contends that, in view of
the said payment, it cannot be said that the gold
articles were furnished as dowry by the family of
respondent No.2.
9. Thirdly, learned counsel submits that the incident
dated 01.03.2024 is spoken to only by four
witnesses, namely, respondent No.2, her father, her
mother and one independent witness. On the above
grounds, he contends that the allegations are
doubtful and that the proceedings are liable to be
quashed.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59156
CRL.P No. 948 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010757192024
10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
submits that the allegations made in the complaint
are supported by the statements of witnesses
recorded during investigation. It is further submitted
that the investigation has been completed and a
charge sheet has been laid on 29.05.2024. Hence,
the matter requires to be tried and the petitioners’
contentions cannot be considered at this stage.
11. Heard Sri Jay Kishan Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri Sandesh P. Nadiger, learned counsel
for respondent No.2, and Ms Rashmi Patel, learned
HCGP for respondent No.1. Perused the records.
12. Insofar as the contention regarding the date of
marriage is concerned, a perusal of the complaint
indicates that the date of marriage has been
mentioned twice as 08.08.2022. However, it is not in
dispute that the marriage between petitioner No.1
and respondent No.2 was solemnised on 24.08.2015.
The discrepancy in the complaint appears to be a
mistake, particularly when the date 08.08.2022
appears to correspond to the date of purchase of the
gold articles. The said discrepancy, by itself, cannot
be a ground to quash the proceedings.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59156
CRL.P No. 948 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010757192024
13. Insofar as the purchase of gold articles and the
alleged payment of ₹26,000/- by petitioner No.1 are
concerned, the bill relied upon by the petitioners is
stated to have been issued in the name of the father
of respondent No.2. Though a portion of the amount
is stated to have been paid by petitioner No.1, the
remaining amount is stated to have been paid in
cash. The question as to who paid the remaining
amount, and whether the gold articles were
furnished as dowry, would require examination of the
evidence. These disputed questions cannot be
determined in a petition seeking quashing of the
proceedings.
14. More importantly, the complaint contains specific
allegations of assault against the petitioners in
relation to the incident dated 01.03.2024. It is
alleged that respondent No.2 was assaulted, her
clothes were torn, petrol was poured on her and an
attempt was made to set her on fire. There is also an
allegation of snatching her gold chain. These
allegations are not confined to a general or omnibus
accusation against the petitioners, but refer to
specific acts allegedly committed by them.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59156
CRL.P No. 948 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010757192024
15. The statements of witnesses recorded during
investigation are stated to support the allegations
made in the complaint. Whether the witnesses are
reliable, whether their statements are consistent and
whether the prosecution is able to establish the
allegations against each of the petitioners are
matters to be considered during trial. The fact that
only four witnesses are stated to have witnessed the
incident, by itself, is not a ground to reject the
prosecution case at this stage.
16. At the stage of considering a petition for quashing,
this Court is not required to undertake a detailed
assessment of the evidence or determine the
truthfulness of the allegations. The question is
whether the allegations in the complaint and the
material collected during investigation, taken at face
value, disclose the commission of the offences
alleged.
17. In the present case, the charge sheet has been filed
after completion of investigation. The allegations in
the complaint, read with the statements of
witnesses, cannot be said to be wholly insufficient to
proceed against the petitioners. The contentions
raised by learned counsel for the petitioners involve
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59156
CRL.P No. 948 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010757192024
disputed questions of fact which require
consideration during trial.
18. In that view of the matter, this Court is unable to
conclude that the proceedings against any of the
petitioners are liable to be quashed. The petitioners
would have to face trial, where they may raise all
permissible contentions and seek to establish their
defence in accordance with law.
19. As such, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
dismissed
i) The Criminal Petition is .
ii) It is made clear that the observations made herein
are confined to the consideration of the present
petition and shall not influence the trial Court in
adjudicating the matter on its merits. The trial
Court shall consider the evidence independently
and in accordance with law.
iii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to agitate all
their defences before the trial Court.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
PRS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11