- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20457 CRL.P No. 6588 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6588 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RANGASWAMY S/O PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT AREHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA-26. 2. SMT. CHINNAMMA P. D/O PALAIAH G.H., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT AREHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA-26. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY KUSHALNAGAR RURAL POLICE STATION, KODAGU DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-01. 2. SMT. SARITHA W/O SURESHA G.P., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE, Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20457 CRL.P No. 6588 of 2021 CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-13. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. SRINIVASA D.C., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.868/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KUSHALNAGAR IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged the prosecution launched against them by the respondent No.1 in C.C.No.868/2021 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kushalanagar (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. (i) A criminal prosecution was launched against the petitioners and accused No.1 by respondent No.2 who informed the police station at Channagiri on 06.11.2020 that - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20457 CRL.P No. 6588 of 2021 she was given in marriage to the accused No.1. She claimed that after her marriage, she was forced to get money and gold ornaments from her parents and that the petitioners were also forcing her to get money and ornaments from her parents. She claimed that she informed this to her parents and that her parents had advised the accused No.1 and his family members. She alleged that after her parents went back, the accused No.1 and the petitioners abused her and threw her out of the house on 03.11.2020. She alleged that she went back to her parents' house and informed all the happenings. Later, on 05.11.2020 at 11.00 p.m. the petitioners and the accused No.1 went to Kalkere, the native place of the respondent No.2 and though she invited them into the house, they chastised her saying that she should not return back to the house until she got the dowry and ornaments. They also assaulted her and informed her that if she did not get the ornaments and the dowry, she should not return back to the matrimonial home. (ii) Based on this, the Channagiri police registered Crime No.337/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They forwarded - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20457 CRL.P No. 6588 of 2021 the complaint to the Kushalnagar Police Station, who registered the case as Crime No.17/2021 and took up investigation. After investigation, they filed charge sheet against the petitioners and the accused No.1 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Trial Court took cognizance and issued process. (iii) The petitioners being aggrieved by the filing of the charge sheet as well as taking cognizance and issuing process are before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the statement of the respondent No.2 was recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she did not disclose that the petitioners had ever demanded dowry or ornaments from her and her parents. She also did not disclose any act which constituted an offence under Section 323 or 504 of IPC. He therefore, contends that the impugned prosecution launched against the petitioners is without any basis, but is designed only to harass and compel the accused No.1 to a settlement. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20457 CRL.P No. 6588 of 2021 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that though the respondent No.2 did not disclose everything that was mentioned in the complaint before the Magistrate, yet she has specifically mentioned that the petitioners and the accused No.1 went to her parental house, where she and her parents were manhandled. He therefore, submits that there are sufficient materials against the petitioners for an offence punishable Sections 323 and 504 of IPC. He therefore, submits that the case does not present any reason for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He therefore, prays that this petition be dismissed. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader reiterated the above submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 6. I have considered submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. 7. In the information furnished by the respondent No.2 before the Channagiri Police, the respondent No.2 had - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20457 CRL.P No. 6588 of 2021 specifically alleged that the petitioners and the accused No.1 had demanded dowry in the form of cash and gold ornaments. She also alleged that she was thrown out of the house for not bringing the dowry in the form of cash and gold ornaments. She also alleged that on 05.11.2020, the petitioners and the accused No.1 had gone to her parental house, where she was warned not to return back to the matrimonial home without the dowry and the gold ornaments. She also referred to certain incidents that happened on 05.11.2020, where she was physically manhandled by the accused No.1 as well as the petitioners. Contrarily, when her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C was recorded before the Magistrate, except making allegations against her husband, a faint allegation was made against the petitioners that the petitioners along with accused No.1 went to her parental house where they assaulted her as well as her parents. Except this statement, there is nothing to show the complicity of the petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC or under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. When there are skirmishes between the husband and wife, it is but natural for the relatives on both sides to partake in some settlement process. It is not the case - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20457 CRL.P No. 6588 of 2021 of the respondent No.2 that the petitioners are residing with her and accused No.1. In addition, there is no material to justify an offence under Section 323 of IPC at least so far as the petitioners are concerned. In that view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution of the petitioners is only to strong arm the accused No.1 to settle the matrimonial dispute between the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. 8. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The prosecution of the petitioners by the respondent No.1 in C.C.No.868/2021 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kushalanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is quashed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33