- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3799 CRL.P No. 5256 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5256 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI. VINAY KUMAR. N S/O. SRI. NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO. 524, SHANKAR KRISHNA RESIDENCY, 3RD MAIN, OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI, BENGALURU - 560 043, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.09, NICHOLLAS DRIVE, REDBANK PLAINS, BRISBANE 4301, QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA - 4301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAY KUMAR N., ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT POLICE, BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. D. VISHWANATH S/O. LATE SRI. DURGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3799 CRL.P No. 5256 of 2018 R/AT NO. 457, 12TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 086. 3. SMT. MANASA DEVI B.V, D/O SRI. D. VISHWANATH, R/AT NO.457, 12TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 086. PRESENTLY R/AT NO.19, MEADOWS CIRCUIT, BELL BIRD PARK, QLD 4301, AUSTRALIA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. AKARSH S. KANADE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3 (ABSENT)) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.04.2018, TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VII A.C.M.M., AT BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.9123/2018 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.24/2018). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3799 CRL.P No. 5256 of 2018 ORAL ORDER Petitioner being accused No.1 in C.C.No.9123/2018 (arising out of Crime No.24/2018 of Mahalakshmipuram police station) pending on the file of learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2, being the father-in-law of wife of the petitioner filed the first information against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC. The investigation was undertaken. Charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 5 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3799 CRL.P No. 5256 of 2018 3. It is the contention of the prosecution that CW-4 is the daughter of the informant and she was in love with accused No.1, who is the petitioner herein. Their marriage was arranged by the informant on 19.11.2009 by spending Rs.10,00,000/-. It is stated that at the time of marriage, accused No.1 had received a gold chain and a gold ring. Thereafter, he went to Dubai. For arranging the ticket, the informant was made to pay Rs.1,00,000/-. Even though CW-4 was staying in India, she was made to pay her entire salary to accused No.2. By utilizing the same, an Apartment at Kempapura was purchased. Accused No.1 went to Australia. CW-4 was getting treatment for conceiving in Bengaluru for which, informant has spent about Rs.3 to 4 lakhs. 4. It is alleged that the accused were physically and mentally ill-treating CW-4 and they were insisting for payment of additional dowry of Rs.15,00,000/-. It is also alleged that accused No.1 was insisting CW-4 to give him divorce and he tried to get the signatures of CW-4 forcibly. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3799 CRL.P No. 5256 of 2018 Accused Nos.4 and 5 have joined hands with accused No.1 by forcing CW-4 to sign and to give consent for divorce. Thereby, the accused have committed offence against CW- 4. The petitioner being accused No.1 is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner remained absent and has not addressed his arguments in spite of giving sufficient opportunity. Hence, his arguments is taken as Nil. 6. Heard Sri.Venkat Sathyanarayan, learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record. 7. In view of the contentions urged by the learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and on going through the materials on record, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3799 CRL.P No. 5256 of 2018 8. My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative' for the following: R E A S O N S 9. Informant being the father of CW-4 filed the first information making specific allegations against present petitioner. After investigation, a detailed charge sheet came to be filed. The prosecution has cited as many as 13 witnesses in support of its contention regarding commission of the offence by the petitioner. Petitioner is said to be the husband of CW-4 against whom the allegations for having committing offence is made. The statement of CW-4 is recorded by the Investigating Officer. Further statement of the informant is also recorded. All these materials prima facie disclose commission of offence. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to quash the criminal proceedings. 10. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3799 CRL.P No. 5256 of 2018 ORDER (i) The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: BHK