- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49481 CRL.P No. 12675 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12675 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. SANDEEP. P S/O. PUTTANAIAH, AGE: 38 YEARS, ENGINEER, 2. SMT. THAYAMMA W/O. PUTTANAIAH, AGE: 63 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, PETITIONER NO.1 & 2 ARE R/O: NO. 1786, 9TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, VASANTH NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 009. 3. SMT. SHANTALA W/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGE: 43 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O: BEHIND ACHARYA VIDYALAYA, MUSLIM BLOCK, K.R. PETE, DIST: MANDYA - 577 133. 4. SHRI. BHARATH KUMAR S/O. PUTTANAIAH, AGE: 36 YEARS, CORPORATION EMPLOYEE, R/O: NO.1786, 9TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, VASANTH NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 009. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDESH P NADIGER, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49481 CRL.P No. 12675 of 2023 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WOMEN POLICE STATION, DEVARAJA SUB-DIVISION, MYSURU, R/BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. SUGEETHA S. W/O. SANDEEP P., AGE: 34 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O: NO.1786, 9TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, VASANTH NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR, COMPLAINT, CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS THEREON IN C.C.NO.180/2020 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MYSURU, REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 506, 354A READ WITH 34 OF IPC, 1860 AND SECTION 4 OF THE DP ACT, 1961. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49481 CRL.P No. 12675 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were husband and wife. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the relatives of petitioner No.1-husband. There was a marital discord between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, which resulted in respondent No.2 filing a complaint against the petitioners herein, resulting in C.C.No.180/2020, pending on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, and the petitioners are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 498A, 506, 354A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed with a prayer to quash the aforementioned proceedings. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, they are not guilty of the offences alleged. Because there was a matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, a false case was filed against the petitioners herein and the police without any proper - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49481 CRL.P No. 12675 of 2023 investigation have filed a police report against the petitioners. It is also submitted that, it was in fact petitioner No.1 who was subjected to cruelty by respondent No.2 and in this regard, petitioner No.1 has filed M.C.No.689/2019 alleging cruelty as against respondent No.2 and praying for a decree of divorce. It is submitted that the trial Court framed the points of consideration as follows and has answered the same in favour of petitioner No.1 herein: "24. On the rival pleadings of both the parties, the points that would arise for my consideration are as follows: 1. Whether the petitioner establishes the cruelty by respondent as alleged in the petition? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce as prayed for? 3. Whether the respondent is entitled for Permanent Alimony of Rs.20,00,000/- from the petitioner? 4. What order or decree? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49481 CRL.P No. 12675 of 2023 25. For the reasons stated below, the above points are answered as follows. Point No.1: In the Affirmative; Point No.2: In the Affirmative; Point No.3: In Partly Affirmative; Point No.4: As per the final order for the following:" 3. It is further submitted that the trial Court has passed the following order in M.C.No.689/2019: "The petition filed by petitioner / husband under section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is hereby allowed. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 05.06.2017 at Rukmini Ramachandra Convention Centre, Alanahalli, Mysuru, is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce with effect from the date of this Order. Further, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- [Rupees Eight Lakhs only] to the respondent as Permanent Alimony within 2 months from the date of this Order. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to cost. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49481 CRL.P No. 12675 of 2023 Draw decree accordingly. Office is directed to furnish certified copy of the Judgment to petitioner and respondent on free of cost." 4. It is also submitted that subsequent to the passing of decree of divorce and grant of one-time permanent alimony to respondent No.2, petitioner No.1 has satisfied the said decree. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed the proceedings of the trial Court in the Execution Petition in this regard (Execution No.71/2023), which shows that, respondent No.2 has received the alimony due to her in terms of the decree of divorce. 5. Though respondent No.2 is served, she remains unrepresented. 6. Though the learned High Court Government Pleader, prays for dismissal of the criminal petition, he is not in a position to contravene the aforementioned facts submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49481 CRL.P No. 12675 of 2023 7. Respondent No.2 has primarily alleged cruelty and dowry harassment by the petitioners, which has resulted in C.C.No.180/2020. However, the Family Court in M.C.No.689/2019, after a full-fledged trial has concluded it was in fact petitioner No.1, who has been subjected to cruelty by respondent No.2 and not vice versa. The said finding has attained finality. Based on the said finding, the decree of divorce has been granted and a permanent alimony also has been awarded in favour of respondent No.2, which petitioner No.1 has satisfied. Under the said circumstances, it has to be construed that the allegations made against the petitioners herein are false and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Hence the following: ORDER i. The petition is hereby allowed. ii. The proceedings in C.C.No.180/2020, pending on the file of VII Additional - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49481 CRL.P No. 12675 of 2023 Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, insofar as it relates to the petitioners herein, stand quashed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9