- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1152 CRL.P No. 5863 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5863 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. PRAKASH, S/O C V VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. 2. VENKATESH, S/O CHANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 3. JEEVA, W/O C VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT NO.55/15, SOUPARNIKA NILAYA, BASAVASAMATHI LAYOUT, THINDLLUR, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE-560 097. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI BALAJI, S/O LOGANATHAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1152 CRL.P No. 5863 of 2017 R/AT NO.65, D HARMARAJA, KOVIL ARCOT, VELLORE DISTRICT, VELLORE-632 503 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI M VIMAY KEERTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C TO QUASH THE FIR INITIATED IN CR.NO.287/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 417 AND 420 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 OF D.P. ACT WHICH IS FILED BY VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioners being accused Nos. 1 to 3 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by respondent No.2 in Crime No.287/2017 of Vidyaranyapura Police Station, on the file of the learned 4th ACMM, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'DP Act'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 – complainant filed the complaint with Vidyaranyapura Police Station against accused Nos. 1 to 3 alleging - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1152 CRL.P No. 5863 of 2017 commission of offences as stated above. It is stated that the offences were committed from 09.12.2016 to 30.06.2017 and the first information was filed on 30.06.2017. It is the contention of the complainant that the complainant arranged the marriage of his daughter with accused No.1 and in that regard, he arranged the engagement ceremony by spending Rs.2,00,000/-. The dispute arose between the two parties as the accused demanded dowry unreasonably and therefore, requested the police to register a criminal case and to initiate suitable action. Accordingly, the police have registered the case and took up the investigation. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 3. Heard Sri. S. Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners; Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State and Sri. M. Vinaya Keerthy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1152 CRL.P No. 5863 of 2017 4. 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?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 5. It is the contention of the complainant that he arranged the marriage of his daughter with accused No.1 and spent Rs.2,00,000/- for performing the engagement ceremony. In the meantime, accused demanded Rolls Royce Car worth Rs.3 crores and other valuable properties. Therefore, the marriage talks did not materialise and thereby the accused have committed the offence. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1152 CRL.P No. 5863 of 2017 6. Both the learned counsel representing petitioners and respondent No.2 submit in unison that the gold ring that was given to accused No.1 is already returned and there is a counter complaint registered in Crime No.407/2017 which is also pending before this Court. In view of the fact that both the bride and bridegroom are already married and settled in their life, and the gold ring that was given to accused No.1 is already returned, the criminal proceedings in both the cases may be quashed. The submissions are placed on record. 7. It is noticed that the complainant has celebrated the engagement ceremony of his daughter with accused No.1 and admittedly, the gold ring that was given to accused No.1 is already returned and the bride and bridegroom are already married the persons of their choice and settled in their life. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but the abuse of due - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1152 CRL.P No. 5863 of 2017 process of law. Hence, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The FIR registered in Crime No.287/2017 of Vidyaranyapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC and under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the file of the learned IV ACMM, Bangalore, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE VP