- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49811 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 927 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MALLAMMA, W/O P. RANGANATHA, (WRONGLY SHOWN AS W/O NANJUNDAPPA IN CHARGE SHEET) AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT DASENAHALLI, NERALEKERE POST, MIDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TQ., TUMAKURU DIST - 572 132. 2. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O NANJUNDAPPA.B., WRONGLY SHOWN AS W/O RANGANATHA IN CHARGE SHEET AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.20, M M ROAD, SARVAGNA NAGAR, COX TOWN, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005. 3. SAVITHA, W/O K. YADUNANDANA, (WRONGLY SHOWN AS YADHUKUMAR IN CHARGE SHEET) AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT KURAMKOTE AT AND POST, CN DURGA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TQ, TUMAKURU DIST - 572 138. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI KARTHIK YADAV U., ADVOCATE FOR SRI VENKATA REDDY S K., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49811 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2025 AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PULIKESHINAGARA POLICE, BENGALURU-560005, REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ANITHA N. GIRISH, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2025 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 227 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING DISCHARGE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A), 304(B) OF IPC, U/S 3,4,6 OF THE D.P ACT, PASSED IN SC.NO.472/2023 BY THE LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72) VIDE ANNEXURE-A. b) CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION FILED U/S 227 OF CR.P.C., BY DISCHARGING THE PETITIONERs/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4 AS PRAYER FOR IN THE SAID APPLICATION, VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49811 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 17.03.2025 passed by LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH- 72), this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Karthik Yadav U., learned counsel appearing for Sri Venkata Reddy S.K., advocate for petitioners submitted that a complaint was filed on 13.10.2022 at 5:30 p.m., and alleging that on 11.10.2022 at 7:00 p.m., Manjula (victim) had consumed rat poison and died at 9:41 a.m. on 13.10.2022 and same was on account of harassment for dowry by accused, FIR in Crime no.314/2022 was registered by Police for offence punishable under Section 498A, 304B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, ('IPC', for short) read with Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ('DP Act', for short). 3. It was submitted, victim was daughter of complainant and wife of accused no.1. It was submitted that on investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 11.01.2023 against accused no.1 to 4. It was submitted, prosecution sought to rely upon 32 witnesses. It was submitted, prosecution case was dependent on statements of family members of victim and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49811 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2025 without there being any specific overt-acts with particulars implicated against accused herein. 4. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Ors. v. State of Telangana and Anr., reported in AIR 2025 SC 173, had noted tendency of family members of victim to arraign entire family members of victim's husband in order to wreck vengeance and Courts should scrutinize material carefully and nip such malicious prosecution in bud. It was submitted, in complaint as well as in statements recorded by Police under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) there were no specific allegations against accused no.2 to 4. 5. On other hand there were contradictions, while CW.8 - mother of victim and CW.9 - brother of victim had stated about harassment by accused on 08.05.2022 in marriage of one of relative by name Chaitra, reiterated by CW.11 and CW.12 also, in inquest panchanamma drawn on 14.10.2022, there was no mention about incident on 08.05.2022. Same would indicate only with intention to harass accused no.2 to 4 said allegations were made. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49811 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2025 6. It was further submitted that as per statement of complainant, Chaitra was a relative of complainant's family whereas, Chaitra was daughter accused no.3. Said inconsistency was material insofar as establishing fact that only for purposes of harassment, accused no.2 to 4 were arraigned. It was submitted that allegations for offence under provisions of DP Act, would be misconceived as complaint did not contain any allegation that golden ornaments were given as dowry. 7. While passing impugned order, Trial Court merely observed that material constituted prima facie case and rejected application. Same would not be justified and would be contrary to law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore sought for allowing revision petition. 8. On other hand, Smt.Anitha Girish, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State opposed revision petition. It was submitted, complaint was filed by father of deceased/victim, in which it was specifically stated that at time of marriage of victim with accused no.1, 100 grams of gold jewellery were given and after about two months of marriage, victim came home and informed them that family - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49811 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2025 of accused no.1 used to tell her that at time of marriage, her family members had not given much gold or cash and as they had constructed house and were in debt, she was asked to get Rs.2,00,000/- or demand her share in property. 9. It was alleged, said demand was reiterated whenever victim came to her maternal home and also stated that in case money was not brought, they wished her dead so that they would marry accused no.1 with another girl. It was also stated that on 04.10.2022 when victim visited maternal home for Ayudha Pooja, she had demanded money, failing which accused were not likely to permit her to live life peacefully and she may end up dead. Said assertions constituted specific allegations for demand of dowry and dowry harassment. 10. It was submitted, death of victim on 11.10.2022 by consuming poison within one year from date of marriage and attract presumption about dowry death. It was submitted, besides above, during course of investigation, prosecution had recorded statements of Manjunath S/o Ganganna as CW.10 an independent witness and resident of locality where victim was - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49811 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2025 residing with accused no.1. Likewise, statement of Smt.Pushpa as CW.11; Smt.Kavitha as CW.16 and Sri Varadaraj as CW.17 would corroborate complaint allegations about dowry harassment of victim. 11. It was submitted that same were in addition to statements of CW.2 - complainant as father of victim; mother of victim - CW.8; brothers of victim - CWs.9, 10 and 12 and sister of victim as CW.11, whose statements would bear ingredients of offence alleged. Said material would constitute prima facie case insofar as accused are concerned. 12. It was also submitted that there were CWs.9 to 12 had specifically deposed about incident that had taken place on 08.05.2022 during marriage of Chaitra was in presence of witnesses would constitute prima facie material. It was submitted, stage for evaluating inconsistencies between statements of prosecution witnesses would only be after conclusion of trial and not at stage of examining application filed for discharge. On said grounds sought for dismissal of revision petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49811 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2025 13. While considering an application for discharge, Court was required to scrutinize prosecution material and in case by reading contents of charge-sheet and its material as if true, if prima facie case was established against accused, application for discharge would not be tenable. It was submitted applying said principle, trial Court had rightly rejected application for discharge. 14. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order as well as prosecution material i.e. charge-sheet, statements recorded by Police, produced by learned counsel for petitioner along with memo. 15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana's case (supra) has indeed taken note of normal trend in case of matrimonial disputes to arraign all family members of husband by victim/victim's family in vengeance and need for nipping malicious prosecution in bud, by exercising power under Section 482 of CrPC. But such exercise by Hon'ble Supreme Court was taking note of fact that other relatives of husband were married sisters residing in different - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49811 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2025 cities and seldom or not visiting matrimonial home of victim and absence of any specific overt-acts insofar as said relatives. 16. In instant case, however there are specific allegations about dowry harassment by accused against victim corroborated by statements of neighbours recorded by prosecution. It is not in dispute that charge-sheet filed on 11.01.2023, cites 32 witnesses. Though most of witnesses are relatives of victim, at same time, statements of neighbours of matrimonial home, where incident had taken place are also recorded. 17. Normally, sifting of prosecution material for purposes of consideration of application for discharge would not involve examining inconsistencies between statements of charge-sheet witnesses unless same would either constitute a case of grave suspicion about involvement of accused or establishing no case constituted against accused. In instant case, death of victim is on 13.10.2022, while date of marriage is 28.11.2021 i.e., within one year from date of marriage. Section 304B deems death of married woman within 7 years of marriage as a dowry death. Onus would be on accused to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49811 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2025 establish it otherwise. Said presumption would be available not only against husband but, also relatives of her husband. 18. These factors would constitute prima facie case against accused. Having due deference to ratio laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana's case (supara) and taking note of fact that there is prima facie case found by trial Court against accused, reasons for rejection of application for discharge by trial Court cannot be stated to be contrary to law. Therefore, no ground to entertain revision petition is made out. Revision petition is therefore, dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23