- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32046 CRL.P No. 11191 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11191 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. DEEPAK URS S/O LATE SUNDARA RAJE URS AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.160, PRAKRUTHI LAYOUT, T. NARSIPURA MAIN ROAD, SIDDARTHANAGAR MYSORE-570011 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER WOMEN POLICE STATION, MYSORE RURAL SUB-DIVISION, MYSURU DISTRICT REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. SMT. NAVYA K, W/O DEEPAK ARAS AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT BETTADATHUNGA VILLAGE, BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PRIYAPATTANA TALUK- 571102 MYSURU DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH CC NO.2838/2024 THAT IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XIII ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 342, 323, 504, 506 IPC AND SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT WHICH IS AGAINST THE PETITIONER. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32046 CRL.P No. 11191 of 2024 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 petition is filed by the husband seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C. No.2838/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 342, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Respondent No.2 – de-facto complainant, who is none other than the wife of the present petitioner, lodged a complaint alleging ill-treatment, cruelty on account of dowry demand and harassment at the hands of the petitioner. Acting upon the said complaint, the jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime No.43/2021 on 21.06.2024 for the offences alleged. 3. The petitioner – husband has approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. The principal contention urged by the petitioner is that the complaint is lodged with - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32046 CRL.P No. 11191 of 2024 inordinate delay and the allegations made therein are vague, omnibus and general in nature, without reference to any specific incident. It is further contended that the allegation of respondent No.2 regarding the visit of her relatives to the petitioner’s house on 03.10.2021 at 12.00 noon has not been substantiated, inasmuch as the statements of the said relatives, namely Sri T.R. Srinath Raja Urs and Sri Arvind Raja Urs, have not been recorded by the Investigating Officer. It is urged that the entire complaint is frivolous and bereft of credible material and, consequently, the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer does not disclose any prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that this Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law. 4. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, placing reliance on the charge sheet material, contends that there are sufficient allegations against the petitioner. By referring to the complaint as well as statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is submitted that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32046 CRL.P No. 11191 of 2024 investigation has unearthed material indicating ill-treatment, abuse and dowry demand. It is therefore argued that once the Investigating Officer, upon due investigation, has filed a charge sheet, the correctness or otherwise of the allegations is a matter to be tested at trial, and this Court ought not to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to stifle the prosecution at the threshold. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and on closer scrutiny of the charge sheet material, this Court finds that there are specific allegations against the petitioner in relation to ill-treatment and dowry demand. The Investigating Officer has not only filed the charge sheet but has also cited at least six witnesses who have spoken about the harassment meted out to the complainant, including use of abusive language and demand for dowry. Whether the statements recorded are stereotypical, or whether the witnesses are interested and unreliable, are questions of fact which can only be determined during the course of a full-fledged trial, upon appreciation of evidence. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32046 CRL.P No. 11191 of 2024 6. The contention of delay in lodging the complaint, though relevant, is also an issue to be considered by the Trial Court while assessing the overall credibility of the prosecution case. Similarly, the plea that the complaint is frivolous or motivated is a matter to be adjudicated upon evidence. At this stage, the existence of a charge sheet supported by witness statements and medical material is sufficient to proceed further. This Court cannot, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., enter into a meticulous appreciation of evidence or embark upon a roving enquiry into the truthfulness of the allegations. 7. In the considered view of this Court, the present case discloses a prima facie case for trial. The prosecution deserves an opportunity to establish its case by examining the witnesses and producing evidence before the Trial Court. Needless to observe, the petitioner will have full liberty to cross-examine the witnesses and place his defence to demonstrate that the complaint is false, exaggerated or motivated, and also to highlight the delay in lodging the complaint. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32046 CRL.P No. 11191 of 2024 8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings. All contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged before the Trial Court. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9