- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21496 CRL.P No.428/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.428/2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PUTTAVEERA VENKATA VARAPRASAD S/O PUTTARAMA KRISHNA RAO AGED 44 YEARS R/AT NO.1/77, VADLAMARU VILLAGE EAST GODAVRI, ANDRAPRADESH-533449 EAST GODAVARI KAKINADA DISTRICT NOW R/AT H NO 63-5, TAPPESHWARAM MANDAPETA MANDALAM -533308. KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH … PETITIONER (BY SRI V.S HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ROHITH B J.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY DAVANAGERE WOMEN POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE THROUGH THE OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE -560 001 2. SMT. MANJULA W/O PUTTA VEERA VENKATA VARAPRASAD MAJOR R/OF. DOOR NO.1880, 1ST CROSS BEHIND LAKSHMI FLOOR MILL DAVANAGERE-577001 ALSO R/AT NO 3-113 VADLAMURU VILLAGE KAPILESWARAPURA MANDALAM KONASEEMA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-533309 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI A.C BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21496 CRL.P No.428/2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET INITIALLY BEARING C.C.NO.870/2015 NOW TRANSFERRED AND PENDING IN C.C.NO.1277/2018 FILED BY THE DAVANAGERE WOMEN POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 114 OF IPC R/W SEC.3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. SCJ AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL ORAL ORDER Heard both side. 2. Petitioner was accused No.1 in C.C.No.870/2015 on the file of JMFC III Court, Davanagere which was renumbered as C.C.No.1277/2018 on transfer to the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere. Those proceedings arise out of Crime No.63/2014 of Women Police Station, Davanagere. 3. Petitioner and his mother/accused No.2 were charge sheeted in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 114 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘for short DP Act’). The marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 13.10.2013 in Annavaram, Andhra Pradesh. They begot a daughter. It is alleged that at the time of marriage the accused accepted three tolas of gold jewellery and demanded dowry. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21496 CRL.P No.428/2025 Pursuant to such demand on 27.03.2014 to the bank account of accused No.1, second respondent’s brother credited Rs.7,90,000/-. After marriage the accused demanded additional dowry of Rs.30,00,000/- in the guise of commencement of his business. He subjected respondent No.2 to cruelty in connection with his demand for dowry. Accused No.2 abetted the same. Further he has thrown her out of the house stating that she should enter the matrimonial home only if she satisfies the said demand. 4. It is no doubt true that this Court in Crl.P.No.4666/2016 by judgment dated 09.11.2018 has quashed the proceedings against accused No.2/mother. But that was on the ground that she was not residing with the couple and allegations against her are bald. It was alleged that having filed the cases respondent No.2 was not appearing before the Court to tender evidence and prolonging the case to abuse the process of Court. It is found that she was examined (in chief) on 23.10.2024. But the petitioner himself did not cross examine her. The Trial Court has secured presence of the petitioner by issuing NBW. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21496 CRL.P No.428/2025 5. The petitioner himself has produced Annexure F/the bank statement dated 27.03.2014 under which a sum of Rs.7,90,058/- was credited to his account. It is being contended that brother of respondent No.2 had paid that amount towards his share of capital in the business intended to be started by the petitioner and the said brother. Firstly discharge of initial burden of cruelty for dowry is on the prosecution. At the most the contention that money was credited for business may be taken during trial. The very fact of he approaching this Court after about 10 years of taking cognizance shows that he himself is abusing the process of the Court to stall the proceedings before the Magistrate. He cannot claim parity with accused No.2 as he lived with respondent No.2 for some time in the house of elder sister of respondent No.2 and thereafter in Hyderabad. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is not fit case for admission. Hence the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE AKC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1