- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29890 CRL.P No. 3802 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3802 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. BUGADE NAGAVENI W/O BUGADE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 2. BUGADE NAGARAJU S/O BUGADE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 ARE AT NO.5/1199 HUNUMAN NAGAR, NEAR PANCHAMUKHI TEMPLE, ADONI TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH - 518 301. 3. BUGADE SRINIVAS @ SREENIVAS S/O B. YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO. 5/390/2080/18, SREE NEELAKANTESHWARA COLONY ADONI TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH - 518 301. 4. ARUNA @ BUGADE ARUNA W/O M. LOKESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.MIG-1-366, APBH COLONY, Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29890 CRL.P No. 3802 of 2025 ADONI TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT ANDRA PRADESH - 518 301. 5. B. SHIVA @ SHIVA KUMAR S/O B. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO. 5/390/2080/18, SREE NEELAKANTESHWARA COLONY, ADONI TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH - 518 301. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PADMANABHA J, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHU O.K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY KARNATAKA BY MADIVALA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. CHANDANA MANJUNATH D/O MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO. 605, 1ST CROSS, WEST CROSS ROAD C AND D BLOCK KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSURU CITY - 570 021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR R.P, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29890 CRL.P No. 3802 of 2025 CR.NO.13/2025, REGISTERED BY THE MADIVALA POLICE, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE 39TH ADDL.C.J.M BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 64(2)(m), 318(2)OF BNS 2023 AND SEC.4 OF D.P ACT MARKED AT (ANNEXURE A AND B). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed by the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 6 in Crime No.13/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 318(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. There is no representation of behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the records. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29890 CRL.P No. 3802 of 2025 3. The present case is a classic illustration of the misuse of police machinery, where a complaint has been registered primarily for an offence punishable under Section 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. However, in a bid to exaggerate the allegations and exert pressure, the entire family of accused No.1 has been implicated under Section 64(2) of the BNS, 2023. In addition, the prosecution has strategically invoked Section 318(2) of the BNS and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to give the complaint a more serious colour. 4. Before proceeding further into the merits of the matter, this Court finds it appropriate to take note of the initial complaint lodged by respondent No.2 before the Kuvempunagara Police Station, Mysuru. The written complaint, submitted by respondent No.2/defacto complainant on 30.09.2023, bears considerable relevance to the present proceedings. The relevant extract of the said complaint is reproduced hereunder: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29890 CRL.P No. 3802 of 2025 "After my masters, I was hired into GE company and as days passed friends happened and also Guru happened, ofcourse I had unwanted attention by other guys as well which I never cared and amongst all of this Guru became a friend, a good one-a real good one. This friendship blossomed further into being a little possessive over each other and eventually a relationship [#PrAna] where so many others (guy) tried to give mazars and sabotage this as well. But nothing worked as we loved each other and never gave up on each other. Things were great uptil we told at our homes, my mother convinced my father in a second and tadaa he became another son here in our family. He would take care of me as if I'm a delicate evening flower. Ofcourse I agree I kinda kept telling him again and again to tell about us in his place. This eventually happened and things were cool uptil he came back the next day after that when a call came late night, I remember it as I was in the parlour getting my eyebrows threaded and him waiting for me to show him my look. But what I saw broke my heart, he as there eyes all puffed, red and in a pool of tears telling "something happened to my mother, I need to leave" and left. The next day I understood his mother did not want him & me marrying. He did travel like a down to cool me and back to his mother, analysed all the gana (I think) telling we were different animals and we wouldn't match and all. But this never stopped us, we grew even more closer. Then came my birthday where he celebrated Dome Café and it was all over my Insta food (as of today which is not there). This day was the first time Guru and my father met F2F And later on few days later my father would say "see so many grooms came and she choose you", you guys are made for each other and my mom tho made his her son and father's being possessive and loving their daughter would say the same: you should take care of my daughter, live lavishly you guys earn, travel the world and all. My father always told him (yes I agree) you both are important to each other live your lives. My birthday later after few days Guru had to come home again & this bothered his parents which I never bothered much. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29890 CRL.P No. 3802 of 2025 And also few days later Guru's father came to Bangalore and saw us, we dropped him to bus, everything was cool and eventually something came up with Guru's mother when guru told "My girl is important to me" and Guru's mom was like "Guru you are not getting even 1 Re from their wealth" and all this crap and me being in my period cramps and stuff where I wanted Guru's emotional support and he wasn't available, this led to fight b/w us where aunty was happy. This fight made guru stay back & not come to office, I was pissed by his behaviour called both his parents telling this misunderstanding happened and please ask him to get ready for office. Aunty was so happy she kinda brought Guru's Doddappa into the scene where he tried convincing me to Break-up with Guru. There was a heated argument where I was depressed guru was depressed both of us at our respective places and this heated argument cooled off later when our families spoke i.e, My father-Mother and Guru's Doddapa. Guru's parents entered the chat later. There was a decision maker in Guru's life. Horoscopes were asked and aunty was quite pissed as I have WFH, MNC job and all this was still not happened to Guru. [1 have messages that I spoke to recruiters and my manager to bring him here in my workspace). There was also another issue where gold topic came up and I was told you earn you get it done & my son should get 40 grams. This shocked me to death as I thought teachers who teach would ask for dowry? My father spoke to aunty & eventually both were like I know to give to son-in-law, and aunty was like I have high capacity & stuff. After this for my Birthday he took me to Tirupathi and aunty had an issue with that as well. And I asked guru what is happening, he is like you are not satified you need money, you need luxury, you are a gold digger these were the terms he used on me after emotionally and physically being with me. His mother had come to Bangalore for some yoga at 11 PM & Guru told she is going to psychiatrist." 5. Having initially lodged a detailed written complaint with the jurisdictional police at Mysuru, respondent No.2 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29890 CRL.P No. 3802 of 2025 subsequently withdrew the said complaint on 26.12.2024. Thereafter, she proceeded to file a second complaint at Kurnool, the native place of accused No.1. This second complaint was eventually transferred to the Madivala Police Station, Bengaluru. Notably, in the subsequent complaint, respondent No.2 introduced additional allegations, including those falling under Section 65 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The relevant portion of the said complaint, which has a bearing on the present case, is extracted below: "I told that all than can be possible only after the marriage, but he told me that within a short period we are going to marry so nothing is wrong if had physical relationship forcibly against to my will and wish in spite of refusal forcibly made six with me. Like that from 25th August, 2024 to 30th September, 2024 several time he did sex with me physically." 6. Upon a careful examination of the first complaint which was subsequently withdrawn and the second complaint, which ultimately culminated in the registration of the FIR, this Court is of the considered view that the relationship between respondent No.2/defacto complainant - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29890 CRL.P No. 3802 of 2025 and accused No.1 originated from their association as colleagues in the same company. It appears that, in the course of their professional interaction, they developed a personal relationship and intended to marry. However, for reasons not elaborated in the complaints, the marriage did not materialize. The second complaint now alleges that accused No.1 had a forceful physical relationship with respondent No.2 on the false assurance of marriage, thereby invoking the provisions of Section 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 7. If both complaints are read in their entirety and the allegations therein are taken at face value, it becomes evident that the gravamen of the allegations is solely against accused No.1. The role attributed to the other accused who are none other than the family members of accused No.1 and residents of Kurnool is vague, general, and devoid of any specific overt act. The petitioners appear to have been unnecessarily and maliciously dragged into the criminal proceedings. On the face of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29890 CRL.P No. 3802 of 2025 FIR, there is no material to attract the offences punishable under Sections 64(2) and 318(2) of the BNS, 2023 or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Notably, even Section 4 of the DP Act is inapplicable in the absence of any marriage having been solemnized, and in the absence of any specific allegation that dowry was demanded or accepted by the petitioners. The complaint is silent on this aspect, and mere vague assertions cannot sustain a charge under the said provision. 8. At best, the allegations in the second complaint, if accepted as true, may constitute a personal grievance of respondent No.2 against accused No.1, centered around the alleged promise of marriage and physical relationship. Such grievance, even if presumed to be genuine, would not by itself attract the rigour of Section 64(2) of the BNS, unless the ingredients of deception from inception are clearly made out. Importantly, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, who are merely the relatives of accused No.1 and residents of Kurnool, no specific role or culpable - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29890 CRL.P No. 3802 of 2025 act is attributed to them. Hence, even taking the allegations at their highest, no offence much less one under Sections 64(2), 318(2) of the BNS, or Section 4 of the DP Act is made out against the petitioners. Their implication appears to be nothing more than a means to mount pressure on accused No.1. 9. Furthermore, the materials on record indicate that respondent No.2 and accused No.1 were residing in Mysuru at the relevant time, as both were employed in the same company located in that city. The alleged cause of action appears to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Mysuru, where the parties resided and interacted. Therefore, the filing of the second complaint at Kurnool later transferred to Madivala Police Station, Bengaluru raises serious questions as to jurisdiction and intent. The continuation of proceedings against the petitioners, who are permanent residents of Kurnool and have no connection to the alleged acts in Mysuru, would amount to unnecessary harassment. The petitioners would - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29890 CRL.P No. 3802 of 2025 be compelled to travel across jurisdictions to defend themselves in proceedings where even a prima facie case is not made out against them. In such circumstances, when the prospect of conviction is not merely remote but virtually non-existent, this Court is of the considered opinion that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would result in a gross abuse of the process of law and miscarriage of justice. This is, therefore, a fit case where the proceedings against the petitioners deserve to be quashed. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The criminal petition is allowed; ii. The proceedings pending in Crime No.13/2025 registered by the Madivala Police for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 318(2) of the BNS, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29890 CRL.P No. 3802 of 2025 2023 and Section 4 of the DP act, pending before 39th Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru insofar as the petitioners are concerned are quashed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 CT: BHK Page No.12 is Re-typed and Re-placed vide Court Order dated 23.08.2025