Karnataka High Court
Mr Sharath Raju vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9059
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7164 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. MR. SHARATH RAJU
S/O T RAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT MILLENNIUM
HABITAT APARTMENT M-06,
B-BLOCK, NEXT TO CMRIT ENGG
COLLEGE, KUNDLAHALLI DODDANEKKUNDI
BENGALURU - 560 037
2. MR BABU KANNATH
S/O LATE P. VELUKUTTINAYAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 815,
11TH CROSS, NEAR GOPI STUDIO
RAMESHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560037
Digitally signed
3. MR K MOHAN DOSS KANNATH
by PRASHANTH S/O P. VELUKUTTINAYAR
NV
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
Location: High
Court of RESIDING AT NO.600/1A,
Karnataka AMBADI SECTOR A
RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY,
BASAVANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 037
4. MRS. SRIDEVI KANNATH
W/O. BABU KANNATH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.815,
11TH CROSS, NEAR GOPI
STUDIO, RAMESHNAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 037
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9059
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2022
HC-KAR
5. MR. T RAJU
S/O. LATE N THIMMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT MILLENNIUM
HABITAT APARTMENT M-06,
B-BLOCK, NEXT TO CMRIT ENGG
COLLEGE KUNDLAHALLI, DODDANEKKUNDI
BANGALORE - 560 037
6. MRS. KAVERI PREM
W/O. SANJAY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT MILLENNIUM
HABITAT APARTMENT M-06,
B-BLOCK, NEXT TO CMRIT ENGG
COLLEGE KUNDLAHALLI, DODDANEKKUNDI
BANGALORE - 560 037
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRABHUGOUD B TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. MRS. PREETI VARMA
W/O SHARATH RAJU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: FLAT C1,
AHP WOODS SPRING DALE
LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
WHITE FIELD, BANGALORE-560066
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1
SRI. KAPIL DIXIT, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT))
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 08.02.2021 AND CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.8949/2021 FOR THE
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:9059
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2022
HC-KAR
OFFENCE P/U/S 498A R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF A.C.J.M.
COURT, BENGALURU AND GRANT RELIEFS TO THE PETITIONERS
HEREIN.
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
Petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 6 in CC No.8949/2021 pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'the DP Act') are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
2. Heard Sri.Prabhugoud B Tumbigi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Rangaswamy R, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 remained absent despite service of notice. Hence, his argument is taken as nil. Perused the materials on record.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:9059 CRL.P No. 7164 of 2022 HC-KAR
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1, 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 filed the first information with Whitefield police station on 15.02.2021 against accused Nos.1 to 6 alleging that accused No.1 being husband, accused No.5 being the father, accused No.6 being sister, accused Nos.2 to 4 being relatives of accused No.1 demanded and accepted dowry, and the marriage was performed on 27.08.2017. After the marriage, when she had been to matrimonial house, the accused ill-treated her and started demanding additional dowry. She was ousted from the matrimonial house and she started residing in her own flat, since 2019. Even then the accused used to treat her with cruelty by demanding additional -5- NC: 2026:KHC:9059 CRL.P No. 7164 of 2022 HC-KAR dowry and therefore, prayed for registration of the criminal case.
5. The FIR in Cr.No.43/2011 of Whitefield police station came to be registered. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. It is stated in column No.7 of the charge sheet that at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.6 lakhs in cash was given to accused No.1, along with gold chain, clothes etc and 1/2 kg of gold was given to respondent No.2. The marriage was performed by spending lavishly.
6. It is contended by respondent No.2 that, after marriage, the accused started demanding additional dowry and treated her with cruelty. Since she was ousted from matrimonial house, she had gone to her own flat in February, 2019. But still the accused were insisting her to pay the additional dowry. It is also stated that accused No.1 was insisting for divorce and hence, the complaint came to be filed.
7. Interestingly, there is no date and time of commission, of any of the offences. Bald and general allegations are made. It is stated that respondent No.2 is a Software Engineer working in Accenture, Bengaluru. Accused -6- NC: 2026:KHC:9059 CRL.P No. 7164 of 2022 HC-KAR No.1 is also equally qualified. My attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners to Annexure R1 produced by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 along with the statement of objections. The complaint dated 19.08.2019 was filed by respondent No.2 with Karnataka State Commission for Women. But, there was no allegation of demand and acceptance of dowry or demand for additional dowry. Casually some incidents that had occurred in the house were explained as a story without there being any particulars. There is no reason as to why there is no allegation of demand and acceptance of dowry or demand for additional dowry in the complaint dated 19.08.2019 but it finds a place in the present complaint that was filed on 15.02.2021.
8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, accused No.1 had filed MC No.1311/2020 on 06.03.2020, seeking divorce, as respondent No.2 had abandoned the matrimonial house and started residing in her own flat. After service of notice of this Matrimonial case petition, the present complaint was filed. It is to be noticed that respondent No.2 has field MC No.5288/2022 on 26.08.2022 seeking restitution -7- NC: 2026:KHC:9059 CRL.P No. 7164 of 2022 HC-KAR of conjugal rights and therefore, it is clear that even though on 19.08.2019 a complaint was filed with Karnataka State Commission for Women, there is no allegation of demand and acceptance of dowry or demand for additional dowry. Even though some incidents were explained, they lack any particulars and cannot be termed as cruelty as described under Section 498A of Cr.PC. It is only while filing the first information on 15.02.2021 for the first time, the allegations of demand and acceptance of dowry and demand for additional dowry were made. It is stated that cash of Rs.6 lakhs, gold chain, clothes are given to accused No.1 and 1/2 kg of gold was given to respondent No.2. Even after Investigation, the Investigating Officer has not collected any prima-facie materials regarding source for payment of these valuables.
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and another 1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the 1 2024 INSC 369 -8- NC: 2026:KHC:9059 CRL.P No. 7164 of 2022 HC-KAR complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute.
30. In the aforesaid context, we should look into the category 7 as indicated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The category 7 as laid reads thus: -
"(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
31. We are of the view that the category 7 referred to above should be taken into consideration and applied in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. If the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of her husband and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence the Court with a view to doing substantial justice should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter. If the submission canvassed by the counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 and the State is to be accepted mechanically then in our opinion the very conferment of the inherent power by the Cr.P.C. upon the High Court would be rendered otiose. We are saying so for the simple reason that if the wife on account of matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband and his family members then the first thing, she would ensure is to see that proper allegations are levelled in the First Information Report. Many times the services of professionals are availed for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. -9-
NC: 2026:KHC:9059 CRL.P No. 7164 of 2022 HC-KAR However, that does not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are allegations in the First Information Report and the chargesheet papers disclose the commission of a cognizable offence....... XXX."
(emphasis supplied)
10. In State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors2, way back in the year 1990, the Hon'ble Apex Court discouraged registration of the criminal case which is manifestly attended with mala-fides and with ulterior motive to wreak vengeance on the accused in view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Since then, in catena of decisions the Constitutional Courts have cautioned the police officers against registering the criminal cases and proceeding with investigation unless satisfying about the prima-facie materials regarding commission of such offence.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others Vs. State of Telangana and another3 observed as under:
"28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, 2 1992 SCC (CRI) 426 3 2024 INSC 953
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9059 CRL.P No. 7164 of 2022 HC-KAR ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them."
(emphasis supplied)
12. It also refers to its earlier decision in Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand4 and held in paragraph 31 as under:
"31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection."
(emphasis supplied) 4 (2010) 7 SCC 667
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9059 CRL.P No. 7164 of 2022 HC-KAR
13. In Smt. Neera Singh Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi)5, the Delhi High Court has made the following observations:
"3. A perusal of the complaint would show that as per allegations dowry demand was made even before marriage i.e. at the time of engagement and an AC was demanded from her father by her in-laws and her father had assured that AC would be given at the time of marriage. However, she told her father You have given car and AC at the demand of in laws, what will happen if they demand a flat tomorrow?. Despite her this conversation with her father and despite her knowing that dowry demand had already been made, she married in the same family irrespective of the fact that she was well- educated lady and was an engineer and her brother was in police. In fact, these kinds of allegations made after breakdown of the marriage show the mentality of the complainant. I consider where these kinds of allegations are made, the police should simultaneously register a case under Dowry Prohibition Act (in short the 'Act') against the parents of the complainant as well, who married their daughter despite demand of dowry. Section 3 of the Act prohibits giving and taking of dowry. If a woman of grown up age and well educated gets married to a person despite dowry demand, she and her family becomes accomplaice in the crime under Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about the amount spent on marriage and other ceremonies and on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is made of spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the source of income and how funds flowed. I consider time has come that courts should insist upon disclosing source of such funds and verification of income from tax returns and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules 5 138(2007) DLT 152
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9059 CRL.P No. 7164 of 2022 HC-KAR under Dowry Prohibition Act and should not entertain any complaint, if the rules have not been complied with.. XXX"
(emphasis supplied) There was reference to Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of list of presents to the Bride and Bride groom) Rules, 1985.
14. In view of these decisions, the position of law is very well settled. Although Section 498A IPC was enacted to address cruelty against married women, courts must remain vigilant against its misuse through vague and generalized allegations arising from matrimonial disputes, and the prosecution should not proceed where there are no prima facie materials available on record. Bald and general allegations against relatives, particularly those residing separately or having limited interaction with the complainant, require more careful scrutiny and cautious evaluation, and they must not be roped in at the whims and fancies of the complainant with an intention to cause harassment. The allegations relating to dowry made after breakdown of marriage must be examined with circumspection. The exaggerated or unsupported claims regarding dowry or marriage expenses should be verified in
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9059 CRL.P No. 7164 of 2022 HC-KAR accordance with the provisions and procedural requirements under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Rules.
15. It is stated that accused Nos.2 to 4 are the relatives of accused No.1 and are residing separately. But the complaint came to be filed against all the family members, even though some of them are residing separately. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Merely saying that respondent No.2 was prevented from filing complaint in view of Covid-19, cannot be accepted, in view of the earlier complaint with the Karnataka State Commission for Women.
16. It is stated that respondent No.2 has filed a petition seeking maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.PC from accused No.1 by filing C.Misc.No.592/2022 on 23.08.2022. But allowed it to be dismissed for default. Therefore, it is clear that respondent No.2 became active in making allegations against the petitioners only after MC No.1311/2020 was filed on 06.03.2020 by accused No.1. There are no prima-facie materials to constitute the offences. Hence I am of the opinion that initiation of the criminal proceedings is in abuse of process of law. Hence, the same is liable to quashed.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9059 CRL.P No. 7164 of 2022 HC-KAR
17. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The criminal proceedings initiated in CC No.8949/2021 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A R/w Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, is hereby quashed against the petitioners.
SD/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8