- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3070 CRL.P No. 6997 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6997 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. NETHRANANDA @ ANANDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O. T. THIMMAPPA, 2. T. THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O. THIMMAPPA, 3. SUSHEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O. T. THIMMAPPA, PET NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT GOVINDAPURA VILLAGE, BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK - 577 548. 4. LALITHAMMA W/O. MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT JIGANEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK - 577 548. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANIKETH K.U., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KADUR P.S., REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3070 CRL.P No. 6997 of 2018 2. SAVITHRI W/O. NETHRANANDA @ ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT GOVINDAPURA VILLAGE, BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 548. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL SPP FOR R1 R2 SD) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.695/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KADUR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498-A, 323, 504 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.695 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Kadur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. Heard Sri Aniketh K.V., learned counsel for Sri Sachin B.S., learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Asma Kouser, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3070 CRL.P No. 6997 of 2018 No.1. Respondent No.2 though she was served with notice, remained absent. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 4. Respondent No.2 being the wife of petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 lodged the first information with Kadur Police on 26.12.2017 against accused Nos.1 to 4, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. Accused No.1 is the husband, accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the mother, father and sister of accused No.1 respectively. The marriage between respondent No.2 and accused No.1 was performed on 26.08.2011. The materials on record disclose that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3070 CRL.P No. 6997 of 2018 accused No.1 had requested Kadur Police by filing representation, asking them to advice his wife i.e. respondent No.2 to join him in the matrimonial house. This representation is dated 28.11.2017. The materials on record also disclose that accused No.1 had issued the legal notice dated 21.12.2017 to respondent No.2, seeking restitution of conjugal rights stating that she had been to her parents house and had not returned to the matrimonial house. It is stated that within 4-5 days, the notice was served on respondent No.2. 5. The present complaint dated 26.12.2017 came to be filed, alleging that there was demand for dowry before marriage and at the time of marriage accused No.1 had received gold and other valuable items. Even after the marriage, there was demand for additional dowry. As respondent No.2 was ill-treated, therefore two sindhi cows were given as dowry. According to respondent No.2, she was staying in her parental house as she had given birth to a girl child. She alleges that the incident in question had occurred on 20.12.2017 when she went to the house of accused No.1 along with other witnesses. The accused have objected and prevented her from entering the matrimonial house. There is no - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3070 CRL.P No. 6997 of 2018 explanation as to why respondent No.2 has not filed the complaint immediately on 20.12.2017 or at least on the following day. The complaint came to be filed on 26.12.2017, i.e., five days after accused No.1 issued the legal notice for restitution of conjugal rights, as per the postal receipt and acknowledgement pertaining to the legal notice, the notice is served on respondent No.2. Prima-facie service of notice seeking restitution of conjugal rights led to filing of this complaint. 6. Even though the investigation was completed and the charge sheet is filed making allegations regarding demand and acceptance of dowry, no prima-facie materials are placed before the Court either for having demanded or for having paid the same. No materials are placed before the Court to suggest that respondent No.2 had sustained any injury in the alleged incident. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is only after issuance of the legal notice on 21.12.2017, some developments appears to have taken place, which resulted in filing of the first information, making bald and general allegations without any specific details or supporting documents. When such serious allegations are made, there - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3070 CRL.P No. 6997 of 2018 must be some prima-facie materials to form an opinion for the purpose of accepting the allegations. Since no such materials are placed before the Court, I am of the opinion that the initiation and continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is in abuse of process of law. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed. 7. In view of the above, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The criminal petition initiated in C.C.No.695 of 2018, pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Kadur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, is hereby quashed against the petitioners. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS