- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010065432024 NC: 2026:KHC:50861 CRL.P No. 1132 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1132 OF 2024 BETWEEN: PRAVEEN V S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.20B, 1ST FLOOR, CHURCH ROAD, SURABHI LAYOUT YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 063 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR A.V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATEOF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION BENGALURU, REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-01 2. VEENA N W/O PRAVEEN, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.20B, 1ST FLOOR, CHURCH ROAD SURABHI LAYOUT, YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560063 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAVEED S, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. VISHWANATH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010065432024 NC: 2026:KHC:50861 CRL.P No. 1132 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.6463/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 489A OF IPC AND SEC. 4 OF D.P. ACT, ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE XXXVII ACMM AT BANGALORE BY YELAHANKA POLICE (CR.NO.344/2022) ON THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND GROUNDS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking to quash proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.6463/2023 (arising out of Crime No.344/2022 of Yelahanka Police Station), pending on the file XXXVII ACMM, Bengaluru (CCH-54) (for short, 'learned Magistrate'), for the offences punishable under Sections 489A of IPC and Sections 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, 'the DP Act'). 2. The brief fact of the case are that the marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with the petitioner-accused No.3 on 21.11.2021. At the time of marriage the petitioner was working as a Software Engineer and after the marriage, she left her job and started to reside with her husband. At that time, the petitioner harassed her both physically and mentally for - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010065432024 NC: 2026:KHC:50861 CRL.P No. 1132 of 2024 additional dowry. It is further case of the respondent No.2 that when she became pregnant, the petitioner and other family members were forcibly made her to abort. Thereafter, the petitioner and others, suspecting her fidelity and used to assault her and abused her. It is also alleged that the petitioner had an extra marital affair. As such, he used to harass the respondent No.2 both physically and mentally. Hence, she lodged a complaint before the respondent No.1-Police. On the strength of said complaint, the respondent No.1-Police registered FIR against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 489A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. Subsequently, the police investigated the case and laid charge sheet only against the petitioner by dropping other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 489A of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010065432024 NC: 2026:KHC:50861 CRL.P No. 1132 of 2024 4. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that except the omnibus allegations in the complaint and other statement of the witnesses, absolutely there is no such specific averments made about the alleged harassment meted out by the petitioner to respondent No.2. He also contended that the petitioner's mother lodged a complaint against respondent No.2 and her family members on 26.11.2022, as a counter blast this complaint has been lodged by respondent No.2. In such circumstances, he submits that the continuation of the proceedings against this petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that on perusal of the complaint and charge sheet materials, there is a prima facie case made out against the petitioner. The complaint clearly discloses that after the marriage, the petitioner colluding with his family members harassed respondent No.2 both physically and mentally for additional dowry and he also assaulted her on several occasions and thrown her out from the matrimonial home. Left with no - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010065432024 NC: 2026:KHC:50861 CRL.P No. 1132 of 2024 other option, she lodged this complaint against the petitioner and others on 26.11.2022. Subsequently, on that day, a complaint came to be lodged by the petitioner's mother against the respondent No.2 and her family members, which was registered in Crime No.345/2022. As such, he submits that there are prima facie materials against the petitioner, who being the husband of respondent No.2. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Learned HCGP also opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that now that charge sheet has been submitted and the statement of material witnesses clearly reveals that the petitioner indulged in the act of harassment both physically and mentally to respondent No.2. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties so also perused the entire documents available on record. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010065432024 NC: 2026:KHC:50861 CRL.P No. 1132 of 2024 8. As could be gathered from the complaint averments, it is stated in the complaint that, at the time of marriage respondent No.2 was working as a software engineer and after the marriage, she left her job and later her husband i.e., the petitioner started to demand her gold and also the additional dowry. It is also alleged that after she conceived, he insisted her to abort. It is also forthcoming in the complaint that he assaulted her on several occasions and finally threw her out from the matrimonial home. The said assertion in the complaint further corroborates with the statement of the material witnesses i.e., CWs.4 to 8. Further, the statement of CW.9-Doctor reveals that respondent No.2 also sustained injuries and doctor had issued the wound certificate. 9. As far as the complaint lodged by the petitioner's mother is concerned, the same is lodged subsequently to the complaint of the respondent No. 2 later on the same day, which was registered in Crime No.345/2022. In such circumstances, when there is a prima facie case is made against the petitioner, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial in a 482 petition. All these allegations made in the complaint and the statement of - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010065432024 NC: 2026:KHC:50861 CRL.P No. 1132 of 2024 witnesses has to be tested in a detailed trial before the Trial Court. 10. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute offence of which cognizance has been taken by the magistrate it is open for this Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegation therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed there would be no justification for this Court to interfere as held in the case of SAU. KAMAL SHIVAJI POKARNEKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350. 11. In the instant case, the charge sheet materials discloses a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences which he is charge sheeted. In such circumstances, the same has to be tested in detailed trial. Hence, without - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010065432024 NC: 2026:KHC:50861 CRL.P No. 1132 of 2024 expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, suffice to hold that the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. Accordingly, the petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9