- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2037 CRL.P No. 5201 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5201 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SREE BALAJI H. S/O. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA K, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, H4, 4TH FLOOR, BLOCK-2, SAMHITHA SQUARE APARTMENTS, BASAVANAGAR, BENGLAURU-560037 2. SMT. PRIYANKA BHAGAT W/O. SRI. SREEBALAJI H, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, H4, 4TH FLOOR, BLOCK-2, SAMHITHA SQUARE APARTMENTS, BASAVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560037 3. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA K S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA K AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS H4, 4TH FLOOR, BLOCK-2, SAMHITHA SQUARE APARTMENTS, BASAVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560037 4. SMT. ALAMELU W/O. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA K, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS H4, 4TH FLOOR, BLOCK-2, SAMHITHA SQUARE APARTMENTS, BASAVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560037 5. SRI. HARSHAVARDHANA BHAGAT AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O. BIJAYKUMAR BHAGAT, G4, 4TH FLOOR, BLOCK-2, SAMHITHA SQUARE APARTMENTS, Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2037 CRL.P No. 5201 of 2018 BASAVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560037 6. SMT. SULEKHA BHAGAT W/O. BIJAYKUMAR BHAGAT, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O G4, 4TH FLOOR, BLOCK-2, SAMHITHA SQUARE APARTMENTS, BASAVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560037 7. SRI. BIJAY KUMAR BHAGAT S/O BISESHWAR BHAGAT AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O G4, 4TH FLOOR, BLOCK-2, SAMHITHA SQUARE APARTMENTS, BASAVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560037 &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARUN SHYAM M., SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE FOR PETN 1, 2, P5, P6 & 7) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 2. SMT. LATHA CHOODAIAH D/O. C. CHODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO. 203, 4TH 'C'MMAIN, 2ND CROSS, OMBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 043 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. R. RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (AB)) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN P.C.R.NO.58902/2017 ON THE FILE OF X ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU INCLUDING THE FIR IN CR.NO.603/2017 AND NOTICE DATED 07.07.2018 INITIATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO ORDER DATED 23.12.2017 WHICH IS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2037 CRL.P No. 5201 of 2018 PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1, 2, 3 AND 4 AND ALLOW THIS PETITION. 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 - accused Nos.1 to 7 in PCR No.58902/2017 pending on the file of the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mahohall, Bengaluru, registered in Crime No.603/2017 of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 354 and 416 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. During the pendency of the petition, accused Nos.2 and 3 are reported to have died, and the petition filed by them stands abated. 3. Heard Sri. Aruna Shyam M., learned senior advocate for Sri. Suyog Herale E., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Rangaswamy R., learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 remained absent in-spite of service of notice. Perused the materials on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2037 CRL.P No. 5201 of 2018 4. 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 5. It is stated that petitioner No.1 married petitioner No.2 on 06.02.2017. It is thereafter, respondent No.2 is said to have started harassing petitioner No.1 and therefore, he filed a complaint with the police, which is registered in NCR No.568/2017. In the meantime, the petitioners have filed the suit OS.No.5350/2017 against respondent No.2, seeking permanent injunction. Except filing written statement, respondent No.2 had not contested the matter and ultimately the suit came to be decreed and the permanent injunction was granted against her. In the meantime, respondent No.2 appears to have filed a complaint before the Scheduled Castes - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2037 CRL.P No. 5201 of 2018 and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) Commission, Bengaluru, making allegations against the petitioners. This Court vide order dated 03.06.2024 allowed W.P.No.43022/2017 filed by the petitioners and quashed the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 before SC/ST Commission. 6. The learned senior advocate for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to various documents that are produced before the Court along with dates and events mentioned in the synopsis. The materials on record disclose that, petitioner No.1 married respondent No.2 on 13.08.2006. During 2011, petitioner No.1 filed M.C.No.1687/2011 before the Family Court at Bengaluru, seeking dissolution of his marriage with respondent No.2. It is stated that the said petition was subsequently withdrawn at the instance of the elders. However, since the relationship between the parties is not improved therefore, petitioner No.1 again filed M.C.No.2484/2013 before the Family Court at Bengaluru, seeking dissolution of his marriage on the ground of cruelty. By mutual consent, the decree for dissolution of marriage was passed as petitioner No.1 paid Rs.30,00,000/- to respondent No.2 through D.D. dated 06.08.2015. The decree of dissolution - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2037 CRL.P No. 5201 of 2018 of marriage in M.C.2484/2013 came to be passed on 11.08.2015. 7. Respondent No.2 filed the present complaint in PCR No.58902/2017, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 354 and 416 read with Section 34 of IPC. Learned Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 8. It is the contention of the learned senior advocate for the petitioners that there is non-compliance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court Priyanka Srivastava V/s State of Uttar Pradesh1. There is no allegation that respondent No.2 had approached the police by filing the complaint. No affidavit is filed supporting the private complaint. Ignoring these facts, the learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation. This contention of the learned senior advocate is not disputed by the respondent in any manner. 9. The materials on record disclose that, after dissolution of marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2 by mutual 1 2015 (6) SCC 287 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2037 CRL.P No. 5201 of 2018 consent by accepting Rs.30,00,000/- through DD, respondent No.2 had made an attempt by filing MFA.No.9162/2017, seeking to set aside the decree of divorce passed by the Trial Court. The said MFA came to be dismissed and subsequently W.P.No.11172/2019 was filed by respondent No.2 seeking to set aside the dissolution of marriage on the basis of memorandum of settlement dated 07.08.2015. Even the said writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.01.2023. 10. My attention was drawn to the order dated 02.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.11172/2019 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court where the Co-ordinate Bench has recorded that it is only when petitioner No.1 remarried after dissolution of the marriage with respondent No.2, respondent No.2 started questioning the validity of decree of divorce dissolving her marriage with petitioner No.1. It has also recorded a categorical finding that it did not see any demonstration of fraud in the entire petition. It also expressed its opinion that, what triggered respondent No.2 to file the complaint against he petitioners is the remarriage of petitioner No.1 after dissolution of his marriage with respondent No.2. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2037 CRL.P No. 5201 of 2018 11. The materials on record disclose that dissolution of marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2 has reached finality even though respondent No.2 has challenged the same by filing Miscellaneous First Appeal and again the writ petition. The complaint filed by respondent No.2 before the SC/ST Commission also came to be quashed by this Court. 12. Bald and general allegations are made by respondent No.2 in the private complaint, which do not constitute any offence. Therefore, it is clear that respondent No.2 after getting the decree of divorce after accepting Rs.30,00,000/- through DD, made an attempt to set aside the said decree, and failed in her attempt. She has filed a complaint before the SC/ST Commission, where she again failed in her attempt. Now the private complaint came to be filed roping in accused Nos.1 to 7. It is a clear case of abuse of process of law. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 13. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2037 CRL.P No. 5201 of 2018 ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The criminal proceedings initiated in P.C.R.No.58902/2017, pending on the file of the learned X ACMM, Mayohall, Bengaluru (Crime No.603/2017 of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 354 and 416 read with Section 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed against the petitioners. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18