- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3981 CRL.P No. 2397 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2397 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. MENAKA B. S., W/O HARISH H., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS ADVOCATE R/AT NO.919/2A, 81 5TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN K.B.EXTENSION DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 601. 2. HEMAVATHI S., D/O P.H.SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS ADVOCATE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU R/AT NEAR BANUPRAKASH SCHOOL UPPALLI (INDAVARA POST) CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 101. 3. P.H.SIDDALINGAPPA S/O B.S.HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NEAR BANUPRAKASH SCHOOL UPPALLI (INDAVARA POST) CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 101. 4. J.M.MALLAMMA W/O P.H.SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS HOUSE WIFE Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3981 CRL.P No. 2397 of 2022 R/AT NEAR BANUPRAKASH SCHOOL UPPALLI (INDAVARA POST) CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 101. 5. SUJATHA S., W/O YOGESH K., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS HOUSEWIFE R/AT NO.1377, 1ST CROSS 1ST MAIN, MALLASANDRA WARD NO.13, RAVINDRA NAGAR T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 057. 6. YOGESH K., S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS HOUSEWIFE R/AT NO.377, 1ST CROSS 1ST MAIN, MALLASANDRA WARD NO.13, RAVINDRA NAGAR T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 057. 7. TARA B. S., D/O SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING IN PRIVATE COMPANY R/AT NEAR BANUPRAKASH SCHOOL UPPALLI (INDAVARA POST) CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577 101. PRESENTLY R/AT NO.377, 1ST CROSS 1ST MAIN, MALLASANDRA WARD NO.13, RAVINDRA NAGAR T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 057. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.G.RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3981 CRL.P No. 2397 of 2022 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KTJ NAGAR POLICE STATION DAVANAGERE DISTRICT BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU -560 001. 2. SMT. VIJAYA P. H., W/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.919/2A 81, 5TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN K.B.EXTENSION DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 601. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI VINOD N., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482/528(BNSS) OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.36/2022 OF KTJ NAGAR POLICE STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.143, 147, 448, 328, 323, 504, 506, 114, 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF 3rd ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 7 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.36/2022, registered by the KTJ Nagar Police, pending on the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3981 CRL.P No. 2397 of 2022 file of the learned 3rd Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Davanagere, for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 448, 328, 323, 504, 506, 114 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2, the informant is the mother in-law of accused No.1. It is stated that petitioner No.1 is a practicing advocate and petitioner Nos.2, 5 and 7 are her sisters, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.6 is the husband of petitioner No.5. It is stated that the marriage of petitioner No.1 was performed with the son of respondent No.2 on 25.05.2014, and few months later, there was a marital discord between the husband and wife. The husband of petitioner No.1 is said to have filed a divorce petition. Petitioner No.1 has filed a complaint alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 34, 504, 506, 323, 354, 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, a petition in Crl.Misc.No.80/2020 invoking Section 125 of the IPC seeking maintenance and also a petition alleging domestic - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3981 CRL.P No. 2397 of 2022 violence under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 3. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that even though accused No.1 is residing separately, accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 7 illegally trespassed into the house of respondent No.2, on 21.02.2022, at about 7.30 in the morning and mixed some powder in the drinking water. When her high- handed act was questioned by respondent No. 2, accused No.1 abused the complainant in filthy language and manhandled her. The other accused caught hold of respondent No.2 and all the accused have criminally intimidated her to cause her death. Accused No.1 dared her saying that she is an advocate and even if a complaint is filed, she can manage to get the bail. In the meantime, the son of respondent No.2 came to the house and sent all the accused out. Therefore, the informant requested the police to register a case and to take legal action against them. Accordingly, the police have registered the crime and took up investigation. In the meantime, petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 7 have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. An - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3981 CRL.P No. 2397 of 2022 interim order of stay was granted and therefore, no investigation was undertaken. 4. Heard Sri S.G.Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and Sri Vinod N., learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, 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?" 6. My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following: R E A S O N S Respondent No.2 is the mother-in-law of accused No.1, who filed the first information making specific allegations. The - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3981 CRL.P No. 2397 of 2022 facts narrated hereinabove discloses that immediately after the marriage, there was marital discord, and it is stated that accused No.1 was residing separately. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, a divorce petition was filed by the husband of accused No.1 on 21.03.2019. Thereafter, accused No.1 filed a complaint alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 34, 504, 506, 323, 354, 114 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A petition was filed in Crl.Misc.No.80/2020 invoking Section 125 of the IPC seeking maintenance and another petition alleging domestic violence under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the husband and his family members. Petitioner No.1 has got an order for interim maintenance against her husband. In the meantime, respondent No.2 filed the first information making allegations as stated above. 7. Admittedly, no investigation worth mentioning was undertaken by the Investigating Officer. However, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the sample of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3981 CRL.P No. 2397 of 2022 drinking water from the house of respondent No.2 was sent for examination to the forensic lab and the forensic report discloses that it was containing insecticide. Wound certificate pertaining to respondent No.2 discloses that she sustained simple injuries. Thus, there are prima facie material to constitute the above stated offences at this stage. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that all the petitioners are residents of different places and under such circumstances, the offences alleged against them could not have been committed. It is also his contention that respondent No.2 has exaggerated the incident that has taken place. 9. It is too premature to form an opinion that the petitioners who were residing separately could not have come to the house of respondent No.2 and committed the aforesaid offences. The question of respondent No.2 exaggerating the incident or not is to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. Since, there are prima facie material to constitute the offences, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3981 CRL.P No. 2397 of 2022 I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. 10. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, pending I.A.No.1/2023 seeking vacating of stay, stands disposed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE nvj List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6