- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3798 CRL.P No. 200502 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION No.200502 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. TOTAPPA SAHUKARA S/O BASAVANTHAPPA, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: KIRANA BUSINESS, 2. MANJUNATH S/O TOTAPPA SAHUKARA, AGE:37 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR (M.D IN AYURVEDA), BOTH ARE R/O. KEMBAVI VILLAGE TQ.SHOAPUR DIST.YADGIR, AT NOW R/O. BEHIND POLICE STATION KEMBAVI, TQ. SURAPUR, DIST. YADAGIRI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH, GABBUR POLICE STATION, TQ.DEVADURGA, DIST.RAICHUR, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585103. 2. SMT. TANUJA @ NIVEDITHA W/O LATE BASAVARAJ @ BASAVA, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O MASARKAL VILLAGE, Digitally signed by SUMITRA SHERIGAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3798 CRL.P No. 200502 of 2025 TQ. DEVADURGA DIST.RAICHUR-585401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), U/S 528 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 2104/2021(OLD) AND CC NO.364/2023(NEW)(CRIME NO. 86/2021 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 498A, 323, 504, R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC 3, 4, AND 6 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, DEVADURGA, DIST RACHUR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Ganesh Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Veernagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The present Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed with the following prayer: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3798 CRL.P No. 200502 of 2025 “WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the entire proceedings pursuant to proceedings in C.C.No.2104/2021 (old) and C.C.No.364/2023 (new) (Crime No.86/2021 by the 1st respondent police for the offences punishable u/Sec. 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Devadurga, Dist: Raichur, in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. Facts in a nutshell which are necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: Upon the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, Gabbur police, Devadurga Circle, Raichur District, registered a case in Crime No.86/2021 on 05.08.2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that respondent No.2 got married to accused No.1 on 24.02.2019 at Hemareddy Mallamma Kalyana Mantapa, Kembavi. At the time of marriage, 10 thola gold, 1kg silver was given as dowry. Thereafter, for two months coupled lived happy married life. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3798 CRL.P No. 200502 of 2025 5. Thereafter, there was demand additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and a car. Same was not met by the parents of respondent No.2. As such, there was panchayath held and after the panchayath, 2nd respondent again joined the matrimonial home and lead a happy married life for a brief period and she became pregnant. 6. When respondent No.2 delivered a girl child, petitioners did not chose to visit the house of the parents of respondent No.2 to see the baby. 7. When the matter stood thus, words were sent by relatives of respondent No.2 to the petitioners and on 28.07.2021 at about 10.00 am, all the three petitioners visited the parental house of respondent No.2 and picked up quarrel, and again demanded additional dowry. Hence, complaint came to be lodged. 8. Police, after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3798 CRL.P No. 200502 of 2025 9. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence alleged against the petitioners and directed to register a criminal case and proceeded with the case. 10. During the course of arguments, Sri Ganesh Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo not pressing the petition in respect of petitioner No.1 who is accused No.2/ father of deceased accused No.1. Therefore, present petition is now restricted only in respect of petitioner No.2 who is accused No.3, being the brother of accused No.1. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that even as per the charge sheet materials, on the alleged date of quarrel i.e., 28.07.2021, petitioner No.2/accused No.3 did not visit the house of the parents of respondent No.2 and therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings against petitioner No.2/accused No.3 would result in abuse of process of law and sought for allowing he petition as against petitioner No.2/accused No.3. 12. Per contra, Sri Veernagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3798 CRL.P No. 200502 of 2025 support the continuation of the criminal proceedings against petitioner No.2/accused No.3 and sought to dismiss the petition. 13. Having heard both sides, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that in the complaint itself, there is no allegation against petitioner No.2/accused No.3. 15. However, the police while filing the charge sheet, ignored said aspect of the matter and based on the statement of the witnesses alone, petitioner No.2 is made as accused No.3 in the charge sheet. 16. When there was no allegation at all in the complaint with regard to visit of petitioner No.2/accused No.3 to the house of the parents of respondent No.2 on 28.07.2021 and he having not participated in the quarrel, continuation of the proceedings against petitioner No.2/accused No.3 who is the younger brother of deceased accused No.1 would only result in abuse of process of law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3798 CRL.P No. 200502 of 2025 17. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Placing the memo on record filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, petition as against Petitioner No.1 who is accused No.2 stands dismissed. (ii) Petition is allowed in respect of petitioner No.2/accused No.3 and consequently, pending proceedings against petitioner No.2/accused No.3 in C.C.No.2104/2021 (old) and C.C.No.364/2023 (new) on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Devadurga, Dist: Raichur, stands quashed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4