- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2278 CRL.P No. 201291 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201291 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. DR. SAGAR S/O ZAREPPA LAGONDA, AGE:35 YEARS, OCC: PROFESSOR, 2. SHANTAMMA W/O ZAREPPA LAGONDA, AGE:60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, 3. ZAREPPA S/O AMBANNA LAGONDA, AGE:65 YEARS, OCC: REITRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT ALL ARE R/O. NIMBUR VILLAGE, DIST. BIDAR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H NO. 156 SAGAR NILAYA, M. H. LAYOUT 1ST CROSS, KEMPAPURA MAIN ROAD, CHIKKABANAVARA, BENGALURU-90. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH, WOMEN POLICE STATION, BIDAR, DIST. BIDAR-585401, Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2278 CRL.P No. 201291 of 2024 R/ BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH. 2. SUDHARANI W/O SAGAR LAGONDA, AGE:28 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. NIMBUR VILLAGE, NOW AT 9-8-511, KALIDAS NAGAR, BIDAR, DIST. BIDAR-585401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC 528 OF BNSS,2023 PRAYING TO, a) QUASH FIR IN CRIME NO.66/2024 DATED 07.09.2024 REGISTERED BY BIDAR WOMEN POLICE STATION /1ST RESPONDENT POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 498-A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC 3 AND 4 OF THE D.P ACT, 1961 AS PER FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-II COURT, BIDAR DISTRICT BIDAR. b) ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2278 CRL.P No. 201291 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for quashing of FIR in Crime No.66/2024 of respondent - police for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘DP Act’). Factual matrix of the case: 2. It is the case of the complainant that the marriage between respondent No.2 and accused No.1 – Dr. Sagar was solemnized on 28.11.2022 in Bidar Town. At the time of marriage, her parents stated to have given 20 tholas of gold ornaments and also Rs.25,00,000/- as dowry. Thereafter, she started her marital life at Nimbur Village and stayed there for 5 to 6 days. Thereafter, the complainant, her husband and in-laws shifted to Bengaluru and started to stay there. She was looked after well by her husband and in-laws at Bengaluru for one month. Thereafter, it is alleged that, for one or the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2278 CRL.P No. 201291 of 2024 other reason, they started picking up quarrel and also questioned the dignity of her father, blamed her that she was not doing proper house-hold work and they demanded additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was also instigated by her in-laws. The said fact was informed by the complainant to her parents, her brother Manoj Kumar and common relative Omkar. All of them came to matrimonial house of the complainant and advised the husband and the in-laws of the complainant not to harass her in relation to dowry since sufficient dowry has already been given to them during the marriage. As such for few days, the accused persons looked after her well, however, on 29.11.2023, it is alleged that, all the accused persons once again started demanding Rs.5,00,000/- as additional dowry and forced her to bring additional dowry and thereafter only to enter their house and saying so, she was sent out of her matrimonial home. The said fact was intimated to the parents of the complainant over the phone and as such, common relative relative Omkar Mithrai came to the matrimonial home of the complainant and took her with - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2278 CRL.P No. 201291 of 2024 him to her parents’ house. Since then, she is staying in her parental house. 3. It is further stated that, on 16.10.2023, at about 3.00 p.m., Dr. Sagar came from Bengaluru to Bidar and entered the parents’ house of the complainant and immediately started shouting saying that she was sent to Bidar to bring additional dowry, however, why she has not brought the same and saying so, he assaulted her on her face with his hands and threatened her with dire consequences and scolded her in a filthy language. At that time, the parents, brother of the complainant and neighbourhood came there and pacified the quarrel. Hence, she was forced to file a complaint, which is registered as Crime No.66/2024 against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. 4. Heard Sri.Sanjay A Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State. 5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is a M.S. Doctor and is a Professor in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2278 CRL.P No. 201291 of 2024 the Medical College, having a great reputation in the society. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are the aged parents of accused No.1. Due to the false complaint, all the petitioners have been implicated in this case and also they are facing greater hardship and also humiliation since their image in the society has been tarnished. 6. It is further submitted that the incident stated to have taken place on 29.11.2023, however, for the first time she files a complaint on 07.09.2024. There is a delay of about 10 months in lodging the complaint. The said delay has been caused due to concoction and deliberation and lacks bonafideness and there is no proper reason assigned by the complainant to satisfy the said delay. 7. It is further submitted that, the petitioner No.1 got issued a legal notice to the complainant on 07.02.2024 before filing a divorce petition, for which the complainant got issued reply to the said legal notice on 22.03.2024, wherein she did not disclose about any incident which allegedly happened on 16.10.2023. Thus, the content of the alleged incident happened on 16.10.2023, as - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2278 CRL.P No. 201291 of 2024 indicated in the complaint filed before the police, is totally an imaginary one and a concocted story only in order to rope in the innocent petitioners. In fact, the petitioner No.1 herein filed M.C. No.316/2024 on 22.02.2024 under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act and applied for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce. Therefore, FIR has to be quashed. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition. 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 – State vehemently justified the filing of the FIR and he further submitted that there are allegations made against the petitioners and there are materials to frame the charge. Therefore, at this stage, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. The petitioners have to face the trial as there are serious allegations made against them. Therefore, the FIR is not required to be quashed. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 – State prays to dismiss the petition. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2278 CRL.P No. 201291 of 2024 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it is stated in the complaint that the respondent No.2 married the petitioner No.1 on 28.11.2022 at Bidar Town. It is stated that, at the time of marriage, 20 tholas of gold was given and also Rs.25,00,000/- cash had also been given. They were staying in the village, namely, Nimbur of Bidar for 5 to 6 days. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 and petitioners shifted to Bengaluru and started residing there. There was difference of opinion between them in respect of house-hold work and also other attitude of respondent No.2. It is further alleged that the petitioner No.1 who is accused No.1 had demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as additional dowry in order to fulfil his demand. However, the petitioner No.1 had already registered a case in M.C No.316/2024 against respondent No.2 for the dissolution of marriage. Such being the fact, even before filing the said petition for divorce, the petitioner No.1 had caused notice to the respondent No.2 regarding filing of the dissolution of marriage. Respondent No.2 had given reply, however, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2278 CRL.P No. 201291 of 2024 the said reply contains no such averments regarding ill- treatment, cruelty, harassment and also demand of additional dowry. For the first time after petitioner No.1 filed the petition for divorce, she lodged a complaint alleging that petitioner No.1 was demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and the petitioners No.2 and 3, being the in-laws, were also instigating him to demand such dowry and she was being ill-treated in the matrimonial house etc., 10. On perusal of the averments of the complaint, it appears that the respondent No.2 deliberately, with an intention to rope in the husband and in-laws, filed a false case against them, which appears to be not proper and appropriate. Hence, it is appropriate to extend the benefit of inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. 11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2278 CRL.P No. 201291 of 2024 (ii) The proceedings in FIR in Crime No.66/2024 of respondent No.1 - police for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act is quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SRT/Un List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56 CT:PK