- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:32 CRL.P No. 102586 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102586 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. VENKATAKRISHNA VARAPRASAD RAJU T. S/O. VENKATAKRISHNA RANG RAJU AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS MAN, R/O. BHIMAVARAM H. NO.2/12/10-1, SHIVARAO PETA, GODAVARI WEST, ANDHRAPRADESH-534202. 2. VENKATEKRISHNA RANG RAJU T. S/O. VENKATASUBBA RAJU AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS MAN, R/O. BHIMAVARAM H. NO.2/12/10-1, SHIVARAO PETA, GODAVARI WEST, ANDHRAPRADESH-534202. 3. LAXMI T. W/O. VENKATE KRISHNA RANGRAJU AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BHIMAVARAM H. NO.2/12/10-1, SHIVARAO PETA, GODAVARI WEST, ANDHRAPRADESH-534202. 4. SUDHIR VARMA S/O. VENKATEKRISHNA RANGRAJU AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS MAN, Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:32 CRL.P No. 102586 of 2022 R/O. BHIMAVARAM H. NO.2/12/10-1, SHIVARAO PETA, GODAVARI WEST, ANDHRAPRADESH-534202. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.J. PEERJADE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, H.B. HALLI CIRCLE POLICE STATION, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH DHARWAD. 2. SMT. SANDHYA C.H. W/O. VENKATAKRISHNA VARAPRASAD RAJU AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BEHIND A.P.M.C. NEAR VISHWABHARATI SCHOOL, TEACHER COLONY, H.B. HALLI TOWN, DIST. BALLARI-583212. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. B.G. INDI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT /A-1 TO A-4 IN HAGARIBOMMANHALLI P.S. CR.NO.54/2022 (C.C.NO.24/2022) OF THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 498(A), 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF THE IPC AND U/SEC. 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:32 CRL.P No. 102586 of 2022 AND J.M.F.C COURT, HAGARIBOMMANHALLI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri M.J. Peerjade, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri. B. G. Indi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) is filed with the following prayer: “To quash the complaint and charge sheet filed against all the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to to4 in hagaribommanhalli P.S. Cr.no.54/2022 (c.c.no.24/2022) of the offences under section 498(a), 504, 506 r/w section 34 of the IPC and U/sec. 3 and 4 of the dowry prohibition act, pending - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:32 CRL.P No. 102586 of 2022 before the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C court, Hagaribommanhalli.” 3. Respondent No.2 – Sandhya, lodged a complaint with Hagaribommanahalli Police Station on 27.03.2021, which was registered as Crime No.54/2021 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), as well as for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. The matter was thoroughly investigated, and a charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 5. The learned Trial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the offences, issued summons to the accused. The said order is called in question in this petition on the following grounds:  “The police at the time of registration of the complaint did not consider the facts & - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:32 CRL.P No. 102586 of 2022 circumstances of the case before registering the case against the petitioners.  Before registering the complaint the police did not ascertain as to whether the complaint allegations do make out offences of the cognizable nature, and whether the complainant has been subjected to cruelty and whether that all the persons named therein have harassed her and are not supported by the prima facie material on record.  The petitioner no.1/husband of the complainant has himself taken the complainant to lead married life. Therefore the allegations regarding the husband harassing the wife would be a cooked up story of the family members of the complainant.  There are no allegations against the petitioners of their manhandling the complainant at any time during her stay. Therefore the complaint was though registered for the offence of sec.323 of the Indian Penal Code. But the police did not file charge sheet under the said provision. Thus it is indicative of the fact that, there were no illegal acts committed against the complainant.  The complainant is making allegations against the husband and his family members demanding ten lakh rupees are not supported by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:32 CRL.P No. 102586 of 2022 the reason for the demand. It is most likely that she wanted an isolated life along with her husband away from any body else and made unwanted allegations.  When it is a fact that the husband and his family members had refused to accept any dowry at the time of marriage, in that case, allegations of them of making demand for dowry subsequent to the marriage is illogical. Thus when there is a difference between the husband and wife on trivial issue which is quite common due to ordinary wear and tear of the daily life, it is quite common to rope in the entire family members making unnecessary and unsubstantiated allegations to harass them by implicating them in false dowry harassment case.  The allegations of the wife having been abused and threatened are not attributed against any particular individual person. Further the petitioners are members of one family, the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the complainant was performed as per their choice and liking. Therefore section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted to the allegations contained in the complaint.  It is highly unimaginative that the parents of the petitioner would threaten the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:32 CRL.P No. 102586 of 2022 complainant merely because she had been expressing her resentment for having shown certain photographs. The allegations of such nature would not attract section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.  The petitioner no.2 who is the father is aged 70 year and mother is aged 63 years. Both do not keep good healths due to their old age are suffering from old age ailments and the allegations are made to harass both the parents unnecessarily. In fact all the petitioners reside at different places. The allegations against none of the petitioners are serious enough to attract the penal provisions. The allegations against the brother-in-law are also baseless. This is a case of abuse process of court.  At no point of time the petitioners herein have ill treated or subjected the complainant to cruelty and never committed any domestic violence against her and as such the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act are not attracted.” 6. Sri. M. J. Peerjade, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that the averments of the complaint are totally - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:32 CRL.P No. 102586 of 2022 false and constitute a concocted story only to harass the petitioners. 7. He would further contend that the marriage was taken place on 28.02.2019 at Chinnatirupathi in the State of Andhra Pradesh as per the customs, but all other allegations are incorrect. 8. He would further contend that the petitioner No.2 is deceased and the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were not present at the place of the alleged incident, as the complainant and petitioner No.1 were residing separately. In order to substantiate the said aspect of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners placed on record the Aadhar Cards of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 and sought for allowing the petition, at least insofar as petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are concerned. 9. Per contra, Sri. B. G. Indi, learned counsel representing respondent No.2/defacto complainant would contend that the Aadhar Cards establish that the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were sharing a common roof with accused No.1 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:32 CRL.P No. 102586 of 2022 and the complainant at the relevant time, and hence the petition needs to be dismissed. 10. Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent No.1-State would support the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioners herein and sought for dismissal of the petition. 11. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court perused the material available on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is evident from the averments made in the complaint that the marriage of respondent No.2 with the petitioner No.1 was taken place on 28.02.2019 at Chinnatirupathi in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The complaint discloses that the complainant was a widow and the said aspect was brought to the notice of the petitioner No.1. Despite the same, they proceeded with the alliance. At that juncture, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 informed the complainant and her father that petitioner No.1 had been previously married and due to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:32 CRL.P No. 102586 of 2022 certain differences, had obtained a divorce from his first wife. It was agreed that, at the time of marriage, 30 tolas of gold and cash of Rs.8,00,000/- was taken as dowry, the same could be seen from the documents on record. However, post marriage also there was lot of demand from the petitioners herein which ultimately was not able to be complied by the complainant and her family members and therefore, a complaint came to be lodged. 13. After a thorough investigation, the police filed the charge sheet, having recorded the statements of eyewitnesses and conducted the spot and seizure mahazars. 14. Prima facie, the material placed along with the charge sheet are sufficient enough to proceed against the petitioners. However, in view of the memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners reporting the death of petitioner No.2, the petition as against the petitioner No.2 needs to be dismissed. Consequently, by operation of law, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:32 CRL.P No. 102586 of 2022 the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.24/2022 shall stand abated as against the petitioner No.2. 15. However, insofar as petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 are concerned, since they share a common roof with the petitioner No.1, the proceedings against them are required to be continued. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contented that statutory documents such as Aadhar cards ought to have given preference over the addresses mentioned in the charge sheet and therefore, by following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kehkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others1, the proceedings against petitioner Nos.3 and 4 deserve to be quashed. 16. However, on careful scrutiny of the Aadhar Card of petitioner No.4, it is shown as his ‘care of’ address is the same as mentioned in the charge sheet. 17. Similarly, insofar as the petitioner No.3 is concerned, though her address is shown as resident of 1 (2022) 6 SCC 599 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:32 CRL.P No. 102586 of 2022 Quthbullapur, Hyderabad, the averments of the complaint, the statement of witnesses and the photographs placed before this Court clearly indicate that she is also residing at the same address as the petitioner No.1. Therefore, at this stage, the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted by holding mini trial as to merits and demerits of the case. 18. Insofar as, the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC are concerned, no doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the essential ingredients of the said offences are not made out, such a matter needs to be looked into only during the trial particularly in the light of the other material available on record. 19. Suffice to say that the grounds urged in the present petition are not sufficient enough to exercise the special power vested in this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the pending criminal proceedings against petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:32 CRL.P No. 102586 of 2022 20. In view of the above foregoing discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition against the petitioner No.2 is dismissed as he is no more. (ii) The petition against petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 is also dismissed on merits. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter and petitioners are at liberty to canvas favorable points during the trial in accordance with law. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC – upto para 5 SMM-para 6 to till end Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 37