- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15473 CRL.P No. 5974 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5974 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. BHAGYA N.H., W/O V.KANTHARAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2. V. KANTHARAJ S/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NEERAGUNDA VILLAGE HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAGADEESH D.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRIRAMPURA POLICE HOSADURGA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 2. LATHA @ JYOTHI W/O UMESHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT ARALAHALLI VILLAGE Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15473 CRL.P No. 5974 of 2018 HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 11.02.2026 R2 - LATHA @ JYOTHI) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.06.2018 PASSED UNDER SECTION 319 OF CR.P.C IN C.C.NO.21/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AS ADDITIONAL ACCUSED NO.A6 AND A7 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged an order dated 15.06.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga in C.C.No.21/2018, by which, the Court exercised power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and arraigned the petitioners as accused Nos.6 and 7. 2. The respondent No.1 initiated criminal prosecution against the accused in Crime No.124/2014 and after investigation, filed a charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 114, 323, 498A and 506 read - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15473 CRL.P No. 5974 of 2018 with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. After framing charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. The complainant/respondent No.2 was examined as P.W.1. In the course of her evidence, she deposed that petitioners also instigated the accused No.1 and his parents to douse her in kerosene and stated that they would arrange for the second marriage of the accused No.1. 4. The Trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by respondent No.2, exercised power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and ordered the petitioners to be arraigned as accused Nos.6 and 7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are no way concerned with the matrimonial life of the respondent No.2. He contends that the petitioners have been unnecessarily roped into the case only to harass them. He also contends that during the cross-examination of respondent No.2, she had admitted that the petitioners have not committed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15473 CRL.P No. 5974 of 2018 any offence as deposed by her in the course of cross- examination. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP for respondent No.1 submitted that the Trial Court was justified in arraigning the petitioners as accused Nos.6 and 7 based on the evidence adduced by the respondent No.2. He contends that, it is for the petitioners to establish their innocence by cross-examining the respondent No.2 and they cannot certainly challenge the order passed by the Trial Court which is based on the evidence adduced by the respondent No.2. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent No.1. 8. A perusal of the charge-sheet shows that though the respondent No.2 had named the petitioners as accused, the respondent No.1, while filing the charge-sheet had dropped the names of the petitioners. The respondent No.2, thereafter was examined and in the course of her chief-examination, she deposed that the petitioners had instigated the other accused - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15473 CRL.P No. 5974 of 2018 to douse her in kerosene and set her on fire. She also alleged that the petitioners claimed that they would get the accused No.1 married for higher dowry. The Trial Court, therefore, felt it appropriate to include the petitioners by arraigning them as accused Nos.6 and 7. The petitioners, if are innocent, are bound to cross-examine the respondent No.2 and establish their innocence and they simply cannot file a petition before this Court and contend that they are innocent of the allegations made against them and that they are in no way involved with the matrimonial life of the respondent No.2. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted with the impugned order. However, it is open for the petitioners to cross-examine respondent No.2, if not already done. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that the husband of respondent No.2 had filed a petition for divorce in M.C.No.38/2016 and in the said case, decree of divorce was granted by the Court on 07.09.2019. The dissolution of the marriage does not efface a criminal offence allegedly committed by the petitioners and the same has to be tried. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15473 CRL.P No. 5974 of 2018 Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Any observations made during the course of this order will not come in the way of the Trial Court deciding the case on merits. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41