- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3033 CRL.P No. 201695 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201695 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHARANAPPA S/O NEELAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: RETD. KSRTC EMPLOYEE, R/O H.NO.34, ADAKI GALLI, JORAPURPET, DIST. VIJAYAPURA–586101. 2. SANGAPPA S/O NEELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: RETD. GOVT EMPLOYEE, R/O H.NO.34, ADAKI GALLI, JORAPURPET, DIST. VIJAYAPURA – 586101. 3. MAHADEVI W/O SANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O H.NO.34, ADAKI GALLI, JORAPURPET, VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYAPURA – 586101. 4. SARASWATHI W/O SHIVANAND, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O KHUDAGI VILLAGE, TQ.INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 5. DEEPA W/O SANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O PANI NAGAR, INDI ROAD, DIST. VIJAYAPURA -586101. Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3033 CRL.P No. 201695 of 2024 6. SANGMESH S/O REVANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: KSRP POLICE, R/O KSRP BATTALION NO.10, DIGGAVI, TQ. DIGGAVI AND DIST. VIJAYAPUR – 586101. 7. NAGESH S/O NEELLAPPA ATHANI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O ESHAWAR NAGAR, HUBBALI- 580020. 8. BASAMMA W/O NEELAPPA ATHANI, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O H.NO.34, ADAKI GALLI, JORAPURPET, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAVI BHEEMSINGH CHAWAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH WOMAN PS KALABURAGI CITY, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585102. 2. SMT. VIDHYASHREE W/O NELLKANT ATHANI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O JORAPURPET, ADKI GALLI, VIJAYAPUR, NOW AT R/O H.NO.43, GUNJ COLONY, KALABURAGI, TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA M. MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI NANDKISHORE BOOB, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD)/528 OF BNSS, 2023 (NEW) PRAYING TO, QUASH THE CRIME NO.60/2024 (FIR NO.1042/2024) OF KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION AGAINST THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3033 CRL.P No. 201695 of 2024 PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 498A, 323, 504, 506, 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KALABURAGI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 Ravi Bheemsingh Chawan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State. None present on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: “Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Crime No. 60 of 2024 (FIR No.1042 of 2024) of Kalaburagi city Women Police station against the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3033 CRL.P No. 201695 of 2024 petitioners for the offences Punishable U /sec: 498A, 323, 504, 506, 149 of IPC and section 3 and 4 of DP act filed by the Respondent No.2 against the petitioners pending on the file of Ist Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Kalaburagi, in the interest of justice and equity”. 3. The facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: A complaint came to be lodged by respondent No.2 with Kalaburagi City Women Police Station on 23.05.2024 which was registered in Crime No.60/2024 for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. 4. The facts of the complaint averments would reveal that respondent No.2 was married to Sri Neelakanth Athani as per the Hindu rites and customs on 05.01.2021 in Balaji Garden, Maya Mandira. At the time of marriage, five tolas gold, Rs.2,00,000/- cash and Rs.3,00,000/- worth silver and other articles were given as dowry and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3033 CRL.P No. 201695 of 2024 about Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/- were spent for the marriage. 5. It is further contended that at the time of engagement, there was a demand of 10 Tolas gold and Rs.5,00,000/- cash and in respect of the balance cash and a gold, they used to harass the complainant. 6. It is further contended that the husband of the complainant is working as a Manager in IDFC Bank and having salary of Rs.60,000/- and for want of payment of the balance dowry amount, her husband used to consume alcohol and physically and mentally harassed and other family members used to instigate the husband of the complainant to harass her and they also joined in demanding the balance amount. 7. The petitioners herein have also instigated the husband of the complainant over telephone and therefore she sought for action against all the accused persons including the petitioners. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3033 CRL.P No. 201695 of 2024 8. The petitioners herein have questioned the very filing of the FIR against them on the ground that petitioners are not sharing the common roof and they were no way responsible for all alleged offences said to have been committed by the husband of respondent No.2 and sought for quashing of FIR. 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that since the charge sheet is yet to be filed, petitioners herein can very well appear before the investigation officer and have their say before the investigation officer as to how they are innocent of the offences alleged against them and if the investigation agency does not find any material against the petitioners, appropriate report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. would be filed by the investigation officer. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3033 CRL.P No. 201695 of 2024 11. On such perusal of the material on record, the complainant has given the mobile telephone numbers of all the petitioners and made specific allegations against them that they used to instigate the husband of respondent No.2 in physically and mentally harassing respond No.2. 12. It is for the investigation agency to investigate the matter appropriately and file appropriate report. 13. As such, it is too premature for this Court to arrive at a finding that the petitioners are totally innocent and they are no way connected with the alleged incident in the absence of any material evidence placed on record. 14. Accordingly, the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 CT:PK