- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29585 CRL.P No. 6933 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6933 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI.VIDYADHARA N S/O T NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 2. SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O T.NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO.151, KYALASANAHALLI NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE DR.SHIVARAMA KARANTH NAGAR BENGALURU-560077 3. SMT.MANASA N W/O VINOD KUMAR N AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.5, 12TH CROSS SADASHIVA TEMPLE STREETRAMASWAMY PALYA KAMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD ST.THOMAS TOWN BENGALURU-560033 4. SMT.PREMA P D/O PRAKASH G AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29585 CRL.P No. 6933 of 2024 R/AT NO.233, SAI DHAM ENCLAVE, HENNUR BAGALUR MAIN ROAD NEAR SANDRA RICKETS PUBLIC SCHOOL KOTHANUR DR.SHIVARAMA KARANTH NAGAR BENGALURU-560077 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAGHAVAN M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA NORTH EAST WOMEN PS BENGALURU CITY -560077 REP BY ITS S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU - 560001 2. SMT.VINUTHA P.A D/O LATE ASHWATH NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.151, KYALASANAHALLI NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE DR.SHIVARAMA KARANTH NAGAR BENGALURU - 560077 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R.1; SRI.B.THYAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR FILLED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 NORTH EAST WOMEN POLICE IN CR.NO.10/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 41ST ACMM, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29585 CRL.P No. 6933 of 2024 BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC.498-B, 323, 504 AND 506 OF IPC AND SEC 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This criminal petition is filed by accused No.1 – the husband, along with his mother (accused No.2), sister (accused No.3), and a close family friend (accused No.4), seeking quashing of the FIR registered in Crime No.0010/2024 on the file of the learned 41st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. The FIR is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The petitioners seek quashing of the FIR on the primary ground that the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence as alleged. It is contended that the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 – the complainant/wife is nothing but a retaliatory measure, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29585 CRL.P No. 6933 of 2024 filed as a counterblast to the earlier complaint registered at the instance of petitioner No.1 – the husband. 3. The petitioners further contend that there are no specific or credible allegations in the FIR implicating petitioner Nos.2 to 4. Despite this, the Investigating Officer has, at the behest of respondent No.2, arrayed them as accused without any material evidence. It is also urged that there is a significant and unexplained delay in lodging the complaint and registering the FIR. On these grounds, the in-laws and the close friend of petitioner No.1 have sought quashing of the FIR, asserting that the proceedings are an abuse of process. 4. This Court, by an interim order dated 05.08.2024, was pleased to stay further proceedings, observing that there appeared to be no specific allegations or overt acts attributed to petitioner Nos.2 to 4. However, upon a meticulous examination of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 – the wife, it emerges that there are - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29585 CRL.P No. 6933 of 2024 indeed detailed and specific allegations levelled not only against petitioner No.1 – the husband, but also against the other petitioners. These allegations are found at pages 3 and 4 of the typed copy of the complaint, which has been produced by the petitioners themselves along with the petition. In the considered view of this Court, it is appropriate to extract the relevant portions of the complaint which contain specific averments against petitioner No.2 – mother-in-law, petitioner No.3 – sister- in-law, and petitioner No.4 – the family friend, for proper appreciation of the matter. " ………………ಅದನು ನನ ಗಂಡ ನನ ಅ ೆ ಾಗೂ ಾ ಾನಸ ರವರು ನನ ಗಂಡ ೇಮ ರವರ ೊ ೆ ಅೈಕ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಇಟು"#ೊಂ$ರುವ%ದು ಅವರು ನಮ& ಮೆ'ೆ ನ ತ) ಊಟ ತಂದು #ೊಡುರುವ%ದು +ಯುತ-ೆ ಇದನು ಾನು #ೇ+ದ#ೆ. ನನ ಗಂಡ ಾಗೂ ನನ ಅ ೆ ಮತು ಾನಸ ರವರುಗಳ0 ¸ÉÃ1 ನನ'ೆ gÀPÀÛ ಬರುವ ಾ'ೆ ಓ3ೆದು #ಾ4ಂದ ಒದು6 ೕನು ಮೆ 7ಟು" ೋಗು ಹಣ ೆ'ೆದು#ೊಂಡು ಬಂದ:ೆ ;ಾ ಇ4< ನನು =ಾ>? ೇಮ ರವ1'ೆ #ೊಟು" ಮದುAೆ ಾಡು ೇAೆ ಅವಳ0 =ಾಕಷು" ಹಣ #ೊಡು ಾCೆ ನಮ'ೆ ಎಂದು #ಾ4ನ4< ಒ-ೆಯು ಾ:ೆ ಅದನು ಸಹ ಸE?#ೊಂಡು ಾನು ೇಮ ರವ1'ೆ ಕ:ೆ ಾ$ Fಾ#ೆ ನನ Gೕವನದ4< ಾ'ೆ ಸಂ=ಾರವನು ಾಳ0 ಾಡು6ೕ:ಾ ಎಂದು #ೇಳದ:ೆ ೇಮ ರವರು ೋಡು ಾನು H-ಾ)ದರ'ೆ 3ೈವIJ #ೊಡು ಇಲ<Aಾದ:ೆ ನನು =ಾ>? ಾನು ಅವಳನು ಮದುAೆFಾಗು ೇೆ ಎಂದು ಾನ?ಕAಾL Eಂ=ೆ #ೊM"ರು ಾCೆ. Gೕವ ೆ'ೆಯು ೇೆ ಎಂದು ಾಣ ;ೆದ1#ೆ ಾಕು ಾCೆ ಾನು ಕ1 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29585 CRL.P No. 6933 of 2024 ಮುಂ3ೆ ಕು+N ಮುಂ3ೆ ನ'ೆ ನ ಗಂಡ ಸ1Fಾದ ೋ$ಯಲ< ಎಂದು ಮನ ಬಂದಂ ೆ ;ೈಯು ಾCೆ ಈ HPಾರವನು ನನ ಾ>ಯ ಬ+ ೇ+-ಾಗ ಅವರು ಬಂದು ಾತ£Á$ ೋಗು ಾ:ೆ ನಂತರ ೇಮ ರವರ ಾತುಗಳನು #ೇ+#ೊಮಡು 28/04/2024 ರಂದು :ಾ ನನ ಅ ೆ, ನನ ಗಂಡ ಾಗೂ ಾನಸ ರವರುಗಳ0 ನನನು ಓ3ೆದು ;ೈದು ಾನು ತವರು ಮೆ'ೆ ೋL ಹಣ ೆ'ೆದು#ೊಂಡು ;ಾ ಇಲ<Aಾದ:ೆ ನನ ಮಗ'ೆ ೇಮ ೊ ೆ ಮದುAೆ ಾಡು ೇೆ ನನು =ಾ>? ಎಂದು ನನನು ಮನಬಂದಂ ೆ ಓದು6, ;ೈದು ಕತು EಸುQ, Gೕವ ೆ'ೆಯಲು ಬರು ಾ:ೆ. ನನ ಬ+ ಹಣ ಇರುವಷು" ನ ನನ ಬ+ ಇದು6 ಈಗ ಹಣ ಇಲ<Aೆಂದು ಾನು PೆಾLಲ< ನನ'ೆ ¤Ãನು ;ೇಡ 3ೈವIJ #ೊಡು ಎಂದು ನನ ಗಂಡ ಾನ?ಕAಾL -ೈEಕAಾL Eಂ=ೆ #ೊಟು" ೆೆ :ಾ ನನ'ೆ ಓ3ೆದು, ;ೈದು ಮೆ>ಂದ ನನ ಅ ೆ ಮತು ಾನಸ ರವರು ೊರಗ3ೆ ಾQ ನನ ಬRೆ"ಯನು ಮೆ>ಂದ ೊರಗ3ೆ 7=ಾQ #ೆಟ" ಪದಗ+ಂದ ;ೈದು ನನನು ಓ3ೆದು ೊರಗ3ೆ ಾQರು ಾ:ೆ ಈ ಘಟೆ>ಂದ ಾನ?ಕAಾL ಾಗೂ -ೈEಕAಾL Qರುಕುಳ ತ3ೆಯUಾರ-ೆ ನಮ& ತವರು ಮೆ'ೆ ೋL ಈ ನ ಬಂದು ಾನು ದೂರು ೕ$ರು ೇೆ. ದಯªÀiÁr VೕUೆ ನನ'ೆ ಾನ?ಕAಾL, -ೈEಕAಾL ಾಗೂ ವರದWXೆ Qರುಕುಳ ೕಡುರುವ ನನ ಗಂಡ H-ಾ)ದರ, ಅ ೆ ರತಮ&, ಾ ಾನಸ ಾಗೂ ನನ ಸಂ=ಾರ ಆಳ0 ಾ$ದ ೇಮ ರವರ Hರುದ[ #ಾನೂನು 1ೕwAiÀÄ ಕಮ ಜರುL? ನನ ಹಣ, ಒಡAೆಗಳ0, ಮದುAೆ'ೆ ಆದಂತಹ ಖಚುJ ನನ'ೆ EಂರುL?#ೊಡ;ೇ#ಾL ಾ)ಯ -ೊರQ? #ೊಡ;ೇ#ಾL Hನಂ? #ೊಳ0N ೇೆ. " 5. Upon a careful reading of the specific allegations attributed to petitioner Nos.2 to 4, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings at the threshold. The allegations levelled by the complainant are direct, specific, and pertain to acts of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29585 CRL.P No. 6933 of 2024 harassment, which prima facie attract the ingredients of the offences invoked in the FIR. Granting indulgence at this preliminary stage, when the investigation is yet to be concluded or a report is awaited, would not only be premature but may also result in miscarriage of justice. 6. When a woman lodges a complaint alleging domestic violence, cruelty, or harassment at the hands of her husband and his family members, the law mandates that such allegations be duly investigated by the competent authority. It is neither appropriate nor permissible for this Court to delve into the truth or veracity of such allegations at this stage, as it is the domain of the investigating agency to collect evidence and place the final report before the Court concerned. The scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited and is to be exercised sparingly, particularly where the allegations disclose a cognizable offence. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29585 CRL.P No. 6933 of 2024 7. The involvement of petitioner No.4 – the family friend – and his alleged role in the commission of the offence requires to be examined and verified through a proper investigation. At this stage, it would be premature to conclude that petitioner No.4 has been unnecessarily implicated, especially when specific allegations have been made in the complaint. It is for the Investigating Officer to ascertain, based on the material collected during the course of investigation, whether any prima-facie case is made out against petitioner No.4. In the absence of incriminating material, it is expected that the Investigating Officer will act in accordance with law and file an appropriate report before the jurisdictional court. As such, this Court finds no justification to interfere under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. at this stage. 8. In view of the above, this Court finds no justifiable ground to interfere. The petitioners must face the investigation and, if warranted, the trial, in accordance with law. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29585 CRL.P No. 6933 of 2024 Therefore, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12