- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1628 WP No. 13368 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 13368 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. HARSHA D.S. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O SRI D.R. SHANKARANARAYANA, 2. SMT. NAGARATHNA M.R AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O SRI D.R SHANKARANARAYANA 3. SRI SHANKARANARAYANA D.R. AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS S/O SRI RAMABHATTA D.S. 4. SRI DEEPAK D.S. AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O SRI D.R. SHANKARANARAYANA ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.501, 'A' BLOCK, SUNRISE BRINDAVAN GARDEN APARTMENT, DODDAKALLASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 062 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SREEDHAR N.G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION-1 BASAVANAGUDI, WEST ZONE BENGALURU - 560 070 REPRESENTED BY OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1628 WP No. 13368 of 2021 2. SMT. SHWETHA K., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS W/O SRI. HARSHA D.S. RESIDING AT NO.33, 2ND FLOOR, SRI GURU NILAYA, SOLLAPURADAMMA LAYOUT, AMRUTHA VIDYALAYA, SONNENAHALLI, ULLALU MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 056 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP. FOR R1 SRI M.V. MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE INVESTIGATION PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.0082/2021 DTD 22.04.2021 BY THE R1 BEFORE THE LEARNED XXXVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-K) UPON THE UNDATED COMPLAINT MADE BY THE R2 ANNEXURE-J AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, 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 Crime No.82/2021 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station, Bengaluru on the file of the learned XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1628 WP No. 13368 of 2021 under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'D.P. Act'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. Heard Sri Sreedhar N. G., learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Asma Kouser, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri M.V. Murthy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by 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 accused No.1 - petitioner No.1 filed the First Information as per Annexure-J, making allegations against the petitioners. Petitioner Nos.2 and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1628 WP No. 13368 of 2021 3 are the parents of accused No.1 and petitioner No.4 is his brother. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that she married accused No.1 on 29.01.2015 and from the wedlock they have begotten a daughter on 18.11.2015. During May, 2016 respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house along with her child and started staying at her parent's house. Petitioner No.1 had issued legal notice as per Annexure-B calling upon respondent No.2 to come and join him in the matrimonial house. It is stated that, there was conciliation by the elders. In the mean time, petitioner No.1 filed MC.No.521/2017 on 25.01.2017 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Due to intervention by the elders, a compromise petition as per Annexure-D came to be filed on 15.07.2017. Respondent No.2 agreed to rejoin accused No.1. Both the parties have undertaken to lead happy married life without any disturbance. 5. It is stated that on 11.04.2021 respondent No.2 had again left the matrimonial house along with her child and with all her belongings and the complaint came to be filed. However, Basavanagudi Women Police Station without registering the FIR summoned petitioner No.1 for enquiry - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1628 WP No. 13368 of 2021 through Vanitha Sahayavani Santhvana Kendra, Bengaluru and finally registered the FIR on 22.04.2021. Now it is stated that charge sheet is already filed against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. The petitioners are before this Court seeking to quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.2 is a Master's Degree holder. She was working as a teacher and earning handsome salary. Since she is not willing to join the matrimonial house, she has filed MC.No.2971/2021 for dissolution of marriage and that petitioner No.1 is paying interim maintenance of Rs.35,000/- to the wife and child. He is also reimbursing the educational allowance of the child. 7. Learned counsel submits that the allegations made in the FIR are very bald and ominous without any details. There is no allegation that respondent No.2 was forced to abort her second pregnancy, but such serious allegation is made while filing the final report. There are absolutely no materials to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1628 WP No. 13368 of 2021 substantiate any of the contentions. Therefore, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 8. Even though, these contentions regarding filing of MC.No.2971/2021, paying of interim maintenance and reimbursement of the educational allowance of child are admitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.2, he contends that very serious allegations are made in the complaint against each of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for relief in this petition. 9. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 submits that serious allegations are made in the FIR and after investigation charge sheet is also filed. Considering the nature of allegations, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. 10. The materials on record disclose that the marriage between respondent No.2 and accused No.1 was performed on 29.01.2015. The first daughter was born on 18.11.2015. After giving birth to the first child, there appears to have arose some dispute between the husband and wife. As a result, respondent No.2 along with the child left the matrimonial house and started - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1628 WP No. 13368 of 2021 residing separately. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 has issued the legal notice calling upon respondent No.2 to come and join him in the matrimonial house. Later, M.C.No.521/2017 was filed, seeking restitution of conjugal rights on 25.01.2017. It is also admitted that there was compromise between the parties at the intervention of elders. Respondent No.2 agreed to return to the matrimonial house along with the child and the compromise petition was filed on 18.07.2017. Hence, M.C.No.521/2017 came to be allowed. 11. It is only on 11.04.2021, respondent No.2 is said to have left the matrimonial house once again and filed the complaint with Subrahmanyapura Police Station. The documents that are produced by the petitioners disclose that petitioner No.1 was summoned by the police and also by Mahila Sahayavani Santhvana Kendra to enquire him regarding the complaint given by respondent No.2. The FIR came to be registered on 22.04.2021. 12. In the complaint, the allegations are with regard to the demand of dowry and additional dowry, which was much prior to the compromise that was entered into on 15.07.2017. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1628 WP No. 13368 of 2021 The Investigating Officer had investigated into the matter and filed the charge sheet. The only allegation made against the petitioners after the compromise entered into between the parties is that, respondent No.2 was forcibly ousted from the matrimonial house and the petitioners have got aborted her second pregnancy. Unfortunately, the Investigating Officer has not explained as to how such forcible abortion was done. No medical records are part of the charge sheet. Interestingly, there is no such allegation in the first information filed by respondent No.2. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed a memo producing two documents; one is dated 05.04.2019 issued by the Consultant Radiologist of Sai Ultrasound Scan Centre. According to which, respondent No.2 was pregnant of 5 weeks. The second document produced is dated 04.05.2019, according to which there is nothing to suggest that there was forcible medical termination of pregnancy of respondent No.2. No other document is produced before the Court to substantiate such serious allegation made in the charge sheet. If this allegation that her second pregnancy was terminated forcibly is to be - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1628 WP No. 13368 of 2021 excluded, there is absolutely no other allegation, except that she is ousted from the matrimonial house. Bald and general allegations are made against all the petitioners that they colluded with one another and ill-treated her both physically and mentally. Under such circumstances, none of the offences either under Section 498-A of IPC or under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P Act, could be made out against any of the petitioners. Admittedly, the petition seeking divorce filed by petitioner No.1 is pending consideration before the Trial Court. 14. In view of all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that after compromising the dispute and returning to the matrimonial house, respondent No.2 has not made any such allegation to attract any of the offences which are supported by prima-facie materials. The initiation and continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is in abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1628 WP No. 13368 of 2021 ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The criminal proceedings initiated in Crime No.82/2021 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station, Bengaluru on the file of the learned XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, is hereby quashed as against the petitioners. In view of disposal of main petition, pending interim applications also stand disposed off. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15