- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:700 CRL.P No. 248 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 9578 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 248 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9578 OF 2021 IN CRL.P NO. 248/2022 BETWEEN: 1. JAYENDRAPPA M. S/O. LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT. MADENAHALLI VILLAGE & POST, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 422 (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) 2. SMT. GEETHA JAYENDRAPPA W/O JAYENDRAPPA M AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT MADENAHALLI VILLAGE & POST, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 422 (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) 3. SUNIL KUMAR J S/O. JAYENDRAPPA M AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO. 303, 3RD FLOOR, AKSHAYA CLASSIC HOMES, SURYA LEY J.P. NAGAR, 7TH MAIN, BENGALURU - 560 078 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D.P. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:700 CRL.P No. 248 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 9578 of 2021 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDYA WOMEN POLICE STATION MANDYA CIRCLE MANDYA - 571 401 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. REKHA M R W/O. ANIL KUMAR J AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, #06, SMRUDHI NILAYA, MANDAVYA SCHOOL OPPOSITE NEHARU NAGARA PERMANENT ADDRESS MADENAHALLI VILLAGE MADDUR, MANDYA KARNATAKA …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. GAURAV G.K., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.7/2020 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE, NOE REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.10100/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-D PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. IN CRL.P NO. 9578/2021 BETWEEN: 1. ESHA SUNIL KUMAR W/O. SUNIL KUMAR J AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS NO.303, 3RD FLOOR, AKSHAYA CLASSIS HOMES, SURYA LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR 7TH MAIN, BENGALURU - 560 078. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:700 CRL.P No. 248 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 9578 of 2021 2. NAGENDRA PRASAD B.R. S/O. RAJASHEKAR G V AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT. NRUPATHUNGA NAGAR, 8TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFICIARY CLAIMING) 3. NITHIN N S/O. NAGENDRA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT. NRUPATHUNGA NAGAR 8TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D.P. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDYA WOMEN POLICE STATION MANDYA CIRCLE MANDYA - 571 401 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. REKHA M R W/O. ANIL KUMAR J AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT MADENAHALLI VILLAGE MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 422 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. GAURAV G.K., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.7/2020 REGISTERED BY - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:700 CRL.P No. 248 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 9578 of 2021 THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE, NOW REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.10100/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA VIDE ANNEXURE - D. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA COMMON ORAL ORDER The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crl.P.No.248/2020 and petitioners-accused Nos.5 to 7 in Crl.P.No.9578/2021 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Cr.No.7/2020 of Mandya Women Police station, now pending in CC.No.10100/2021 on the file of the learned CC No.10100/2021 on the file of the learned First Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 114 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'DP Act'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as informant has filed the first information with Mandya Women Police Station on 16.02.2020 against accused Nos.1 to 7 alleging commission of the offence as stated above. It is the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:700 CRL.P No. 248 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 9578 of 2021 specific contention of respondent No.2 that she married accused No.1 on 09.03.2014 and it was a love marriage. After marriage, she stayed in the matrimonial house for sometime, and thereafter, she went to Soudi Arabia along with accused No.1. Respondent No.2 is making allegation against the accused that even when she stayed with accused No.1 in the matrimonial house, before proceeding to Soudi Arabia during December 2015, they were demanding dowry and received Rs.2,00,000/-. Still they have ill-treated her. It is stated that accused Nos.4 and 5 were residing separately but during vacations they used to come to the matrimonial house of respondent No.2 and they used to threaten her to throw out from the family, if their demand for additional dowry is not met. 3. It is stated that respondent No.2 gave birth to a male child on 22.10.2016 and the naming ceremony was held during 2017. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 4 came and demanded additional dowry. It is also alleged that on 28.11.2019, the accused have committed the offence by abusing respondent No.2 in filthy languages, dragging her physically and criminally intimidating her. She was also - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:700 CRL.P No. 248 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 9578 of 2021 assaulted by the accused. Therefore, respondent No.2 requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action by filing the complaint on 16.02.2020. Accordingly, the FIR in Cr.No.7/2020 came to be filed. Investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet came to be filed. The petitioners being accused Nos.2 to 7 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 4. Heard Sri. D.P.Mahesh, learned counsel for Sri. Santhosh Kumar M.B., learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. Gaurav G.K., learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 5. In view of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the respondents and on going through the materials on record, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:700 CRL.P No. 248 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 9578 of 2021 My answer to the above point is in the ‘affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 6. It is the specific contention of respondent No.2 that she married accused No.1 on 09.03.2014. Earlier to that they were in love with one another. Subsequently, they got married, as their relationship was accepted by the family members. It is stated that after 3-4 months of marriage, the accused demanded Rs.2,00,000/-. When accused No.1 was about to go to Saudi Arabia, the said amount was paid. No complaint came to be filed at that period of time. Admittedly, respondent No.2 went to Saudi Arabia along with accused No.1 and stayed there for sometime. In the meantime, she gave birth to his son on 22.10.2016. It is stated that respondent No.2 came back to India and during naming ceremony of her son, accused Nos.1 to 4 demanded additional Dowry and threatened of not taking her back to the matrimonial house. Even at that point of time, there was no complaint filed by respondent No.2. 7. It is the further contention of respondent No.2 that on 28.11.2019, the accused have formed unlawful assembly, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:700 CRL.P No. 248 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 9578 of 2021 abused her in filthy language, dragged her physically and caused injuries. They also criminally intimidated her by demanding additional dowry. Even though the incident is said to have occurred on 28.11.2019, no complaint was filed immediately thereafter. No certificate is forthcoming to prima- facie support the contention of respondent No.2 that she was assaulted or manhandled by the accused. 8. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused No.1 had issued a notice on 01.02.2019 to respondent No.2 calling upon her to return to the matrimonial house and discharge her duty as a wife, for which, respondent No.2 issued a reply on 28.02.2019. 9. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that MC No.545/2020 came to be filed by accused No.1 against respondent No.2 seeking divorce on 29.01.2020. It is only thereafter, the present complaint came to be filed on 16.02.2020. Even though reasons are assigned for the delay in filing the complaint, the same is not acceptable. Moreover, there are no prima-facie materials to constitute the offence alleged against these petitioners. The allegations made against - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:700 CRL.P No. 248 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 9578 of 2021 accused No.1 is of very serious nature. However, these petitioners are the parents and siblings of accused No.1, who are prima-facie dragged in the matter unnecessarily to pressurize accused No.1. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings initiated against them is in abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following. ORDER Petitions are allowed. The FIR registered against the petitioners in Cr.No.7/2020 of Mandya Women Police station, now pending in CC No.10100/2021 on the file of the learned First Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 114 R/w Section 34, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH: List No.: 4 Sl No.: 12