- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884 CRL.P No.101734 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101734 OF 2019 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. BASAVARAJ S/O SHARANAPPA NATIKAR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O: HAMALA COLONY, KANNANA NAGAR, NEEMBALKAR HOME, VIJAYAPURA, TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPURA. 2. SMT. CHANNAVVA W/O SHARANAPPA NATIKAR, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HAMALA COLONY, KANNANA NAGAR, NEEMBALKAR HOME, VIJAYAPURA, TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPURA. 3. BHARATI @ VEENA W/O UMESH TIGADI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: INDI, TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. 4. YAMUNAVVA W/O RAHUTAPPA NATIKAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HAMALA COLONY, KANNANA NAGAR, NEEMBALKAR HOME, VIJAYAPURA, TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPURA. - PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS WOMEN POLICE STATION, HAVERI DISTRICT, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. VINAYAKA B V Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.07.18 10:13:57 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884 CRL.P No.101734 of 2019 2. SMT. SANMATI @ ARATI NATIKAR, W/O BASAVARAJ NATIKAR, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: HAMALA COLONY, KANYANA NAGAR, NIMBALKAR HOME, VIJAYAPURA, TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPURA, NOW R/AT CHOLAMARADESHWAR NAGAR, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SUDHIR KUMAR, BASAVARAJ B. KARADI, ASIF R. MANAGOOLI & ABUBAKAR R.J., ADVOCATES FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO. 265/2019 (HWPS CRIME NO.28/2018) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A, 109 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 & 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884 CRL.P No.101734 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 265/2019 (HWPS Crime No. 28/2018) on the file of the learned Second Addl. Sr. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Ranebennur, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 109 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the second respondent has filed a written complaint with the respondent Police on 14.07.2018 making baseless allegations against the petitioners. It is submitted that the second respondent had earlier married one Raghavendra in the year 2013. However the said Raghavendra filed a matrimonial case in the same year in M.C. No. 86/2013 and sought for a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage between the parties, mainly on the ground that the second respondent herein suffers from mental disorder. An - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884 CRL.P No.101734 of 2019 exparte decree was passed in M.C. No. 86/2013 on 27.11.2013 dissolving the marriage between the parties. However in M.F..A No. 1498/2014 filed at the hands of the second respondent herein the judgment and decree passed in M.C. No. 86/2013 was set aside while granting liberty to Sri Raghavendra to file a fresh petition. However Raghavendra and the second respondent herein filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C. No. 115/2014 and the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent on 05.06.2015. The learned counsel would submit that the second respondent was given a permanent alimony of Rs. 8 lakhs at the hands of her first husband. It is submitted that without disclosing the previous marriage, the second respondent got married to the first petitioner herein on 23.12.2016. However, it is contended that barely three months after the marriage the second respondent’s father passed away and therefore the second respondent went to her parental home to attend the funeral ceremony of her father, but she never came - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884 CRL.P No.101734 of 2019 back to the matrimonial house. Surprisingly the second respondent gave a complaint to the Women Police Station, Haveri on 14.07.2018 making reckless allegations against the petitioners herein that they demanded Rs. 20 lakhs as dowry, for purchasing a house. 3. Learned counsel submits that on a plain reading of the complaint, it is clear that the second respondent has not only made reckless allegations, but it is also clear from the complaint itself that allegations are not made specifically against petitioners No.3, who is the sister-in- law of the second respondent and the petitioner No.4, who is the relative of first petitioner, however their names have been stated in the complaint only to harass the family members of the first petitioner. 4. Learned counsel would further submit that the second petitioner herein, who is the mother-in-law of the second respondent is aged about 65 years now. At the time of filing of this petition the second respondent was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884 CRL.P No.101734 of 2019 aged about 59 years. Learned counsel would submit that the first petitioner is a government servant and he is serving in the Department of Social Welfare. Learned counsel submits that the second respondent has lived with the first petitioner barely for about three months after the marriage and there was no occasion for the petitioners to make such demands from the second respondent. 5. Learned counsel would further submit that the first petitioner has filed a matrimonial case in M.C. No. 14/2019 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Vijayapura, seeking a decree of divorce against the second respondent herein. The second respondent too has filed M.C. No. 33/2019 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. 6. Learned counsel would therefore submit that the fact that the second respondent has filed a matrimonial case seeking restitution of conjugal rights would belie the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884 CRL.P No.101734 of 2019 allegations made against the petitioners that they demanded Rs. 20 lakhs as dowry from the second respondent. If really the petitioners had demanded dowry from the second respondent, then the second respondent would not have sought for restitution of conjugal rights. The second respondent has also filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 84/2019 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month from the first petitioner herein. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that having regard to the fact that the first petitioner is a government servant who is serving in the Department of Social Welfare and that the second petitioner is aged about 65 years and the fact that the petitioner No.3 is a married daughter living with her husband and not with the petitioners No.1 and 2, and the petitioner No.4 is a relative of first petitioner, there are sufficient reasons for allowing the petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884 CRL.P No.101734 of 2019 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent would vehemently contend that on a plain reading of the written complaint given by the second respondent, it is clear that the petitioners were aware of the previous marriage of the second respondent. They were also aware of the fact that second respondent was paid permanent alimony of Rs. 8 lakhs. This is the main reason why they started demanding from the second respondent a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as dowry, for purchasing a house. It is clearly stated in the complaint that at the time of the marriage proposal between the first petitioner and the second respondent, petitioners had raised a demand of Rs.5 lakhs and 25 tolas of gold and in addition a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards marriage expenses. However, after the advise of the elders, the petitioners accepted Rs.3 lakhs in cash, 15 tolas of gold and Rs.50,000/- in addition. Various other details of the payment made by the family members of the second - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884 CRL.P No.101734 of 2019 respondent to the petitioners are clearly found in the written complaint given by the second respondent. 9. It is clearly stated that after attending the funeral ceremony of the second respondent’s father, the second respondent came back to the matrimonial house. As soon as the second respondent came back to the matrimonial house after attending the funeral function of the second respondent’s father, the petitioners started raising demands of dowry of Rs.20 lakhs, while clearly stating that second respondent’s father had retired as Assistant Director in the Department of Social Welfare and he had received big amount as retiral benefits and therefore second respondent was asked to bring Rs.20 lakhs for purchasing the house. It is stated in the complaint that during January, 2018 the second respondent had gone to her parental home to attend a jatra. When the second respondent returned on 10.01.2018 along with her mother and brother and another elderly person, the petitioners prevented them from entering the house and raised - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884 CRL.P No.101734 of 2019 demand for Rs.20 lakhs. Even after repeated pleading, the petitioners did not budge and they did not allow the petitioner and her family members to enter the house of the petitioners. The second respondent was sent back with a demand to bring Rs.20 lakhs. It is also stated that from January, the second respondent waited for nearly six months and the first petitioner did not make any attempt to bring the second respondent back to the matrimonial house. The second respondent and her family members along with three other elderly persons made another attempt on 24.06.2018 to convince the petitioners to permit the second respondent to lead her marital life with the first petitioner, in her matrimonial home. However the petitioners did not oblige. 10. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that on a plain reading of the written complaint, it is clear that complete details of the offences committed by the petitioners have been made out and that being the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884 CRL.P No.101734 of 2019 position, it is submitted that the criminal petition is required to be dismissed. 11. Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the submission of the learned counsel for the second respondent. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the second respondent and the learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that although the written complaint and the FIR registered accordingly make out a case against the petitioners No.1 and 2, nevertheless insofar as the petitioners No.3 and 4 are concerned, there is no sufficient cause of action to proceed against the said petitioners. 13. Admittedly petitioner No.3 is the married daughter of petitioner No.2 and the sister-in-law of the second respondent herein. Insofar as petitioner No.4 is concerned, in the written complaint the second respondent - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884 CRL.P No.101734 of 2019 has only stated that she is a relative of the first petitioner and therefore it is difficult to understand as to how the fourth respondent is roped in the allegation of dowry. 14. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that on a plain reading of the FIR it is clear that the allegations made against the petitioners No.3 and 4 do not constitute any offence or make out a case against the said petitioners. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy & Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.1 has held that there is no specific date as to when the appellants therein visited Guntur and joined accused Nos.1 to 3 in demanding dowry from the defacto complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that considering the growing trend of the dowry victim arraigning the relatives of the husband, the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 884 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884 CRL.P No.101734 of 2019 Uttar Pradesh & Anr.2 has deprecated the practice of involving the relatives of the husband for offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 16. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed in part; (ii) The criminal prosecution in C.C. No. 265/2019 (HWPS Crime No. 28/2018) on the file of the learned Second Addl. Sr. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Ranebennur, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 109 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is quashed insofar as the petitioners No.3 and 4 are concerned; 2 (2012) 10 SCC 741 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884 CRL.P No.101734 of 2019 (iii) Needless to observe that the criminal prosecution shall continue as against the petitioners No.1 and 2. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE BVV, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2