Karnataka High Court

Basavaraj S/O Sharanappa Natikar vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 July, 2025

Author: R.Devdas

Bench: R.Devdas

                                                         -1-
                                                                           NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884
                                                                     CRL.P No.101734 of 2019



                             HC-KAR



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                       DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                                       BEFORE

                                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS

                             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101734 OF 2019 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))

                            BETWEEN:

                            1.   BASAVARAJ S/O SHARANAPPA NATIKAR,
                                 AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. EMPLOYEE,
                                 R/O: HAMALA COLONY, KANNANA NAGAR,
                                 NEEMBALKAR HOME, VIJAYAPURA,
                                 TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPURA.

                            2.   SMT. CHANNAVVA W/O SHARANAPPA NATIKAR,
                                 AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                                 R/O: HAMALA COLONY, KANNANA NAGAR,
                                 NEEMBALKAR HOME, VIJAYAPURA,
                                 TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPURA.

                            3.   BHARATI @ VEENA W/O UMESH TIGADI,
                                 AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                                 R/O: INDI, TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA.

                            4.   YAMUNAVVA W/O RAHUTAPPA NATIKAR,
VINAYAKA                         AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
BV
Digitally signed by
VINAYAKA B V
                                 R/O: HAMALA COLONY, KANNANA NAGAR,
                                 NEEMBALKAR HOME, VIJAYAPURA,
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.07.18 10:13:57
+0530



                                 TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPURA.
                                                                           -   PETITIONERS
                            (BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE)

                            AND:

                            1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS
                                 WOMEN POLICE STATION,
                                 HAVERI DISTRICT,
                                 R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                                 HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
                             -2-
                                                   NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884
                                          CRL.P No.101734 of 2019



 HC-KAR



2.   SMT. SANMATI @ ARATI NATIKAR,
     W/O BASAVARAJ NATIKAR,
     AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O: HAMALA COLONY, KANYANA NAGAR,
     NIMBALKAR HOME, VIJAYAPURA,
     TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPURA,

     NOW R/AT CHOLAMARADESHWAR NAGAR,
     1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, RANEBENNUR,
     TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
                                               -     RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. SUDHIR KUMAR, BASAVARAJ B. KARADI,
ASIF R. MANAGOOLI & ABUBAKAR R.J.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.

265/2019 (HWPS CRIME NO.28/2018) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE

II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR, FOR

OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A, 109 R/W SEC. 34

OF IPC AND SEC. 3 & 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT IN THE

INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,

THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
                               -3-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884
                                          CRL.P No.101734 of 2019



HC-KAR




                       ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)

This criminal petition has been filed under Section

482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings

in C.C. No. 265/2019 (HWPS Crime No. 28/2018) on the

file of the learned Second Addl. Sr. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C.,

Ranebennur, for the offences punishable under Section

498-A, 109 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

second respondent has filed a written complaint with the

respondent Police on 14.07.2018 making baseless

allegations against the petitioners. It is submitted that the

second respondent had earlier married one Raghavendra

in the year 2013. However the said Raghavendra filed a

matrimonial case in the same year in M.C. No. 86/2013

and sought for a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage

between the parties, mainly on the ground that the second

respondent herein suffers from mental disorder. An

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884

HC-KAR

exparte decree was passed in M.C. No. 86/2013 on

27.11.2013 dissolving the marriage between the parties.

However in M.F..A No. 1498/2014 filed at the hands of the

second respondent herein the judgment and decree

passed in M.C. No. 86/2013 was set aside while granting

liberty to Sri Raghavendra to file a fresh petition.

However Raghavendra and the second respondent herein

filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage

Act in M.C. No. 115/2014 and the marriage was dissolved

by mutual consent on 05.06.2015. The learned counsel

would submit that the second respondent was given a

permanent alimony of Rs. 8 lakhs at the hands of her first

husband. It is submitted that without disclosing the

previous marriage, the second respondent got married to

the first petitioner herein on 23.12.2016. However, it is

contended that barely three months after the marriage the

second respondent's father passed away and therefore the

second respondent went to her parental home to attend

the funeral ceremony of her father, but she never came

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884

HC-KAR

back to the matrimonial house. Surprisingly the second

respondent gave a complaint to the Women Police Station,

Haveri on 14.07.2018 making reckless allegations against

the petitioners herein that they demanded Rs. 20 lakhs as

dowry, for purchasing a house.

3. Learned counsel submits that on a plain reading of

the complaint, it is clear that the second respondent has

not only made reckless allegations, but it is also clear from

the complaint itself that allegations are not made

specifically against petitioners No.3, who is the sister-in-

law of the second respondent and the petitioner No.4, who

is the relative of first petitioner, however their names have

been stated in the complaint only to harass the family

members of the first petitioner.

4. Learned counsel would further submit that the

second petitioner herein, who is the mother-in-law of the

second respondent is aged about 65 years now. At the

time of filing of this petition the second respondent was

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884

HC-KAR

aged about 59 years. Learned counsel would submit that

the first petitioner is a government servant and he is

serving in the Department of Social Welfare. Learned

counsel submits that the second respondent has lived with

the first petitioner barely for about three months after the

marriage and there was no occasion for the petitioners to

make such demands from the second respondent.

5. Learned counsel would further submit that the first

petitioner has filed a matrimonial case in M.C. No.

14/2019 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court

at Vijayapura, seeking a decree of divorce against the

second respondent herein. The second respondent too has

filed M.C. No. 33/2019 before the learned Senior Civil

Judge, Ranebennur, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

6. Learned counsel would therefore submit that the fact

that the second respondent has filed a matrimonial case

seeking restitution of conjugal rights would belie the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884

HC-KAR

allegations made against the petitioners that they

demanded Rs. 20 lakhs as dowry from the second

respondent. If really the petitioners had demanded dowry

from the second respondent, then the second respondent

would not have sought for restitution of conjugal rights.

The second respondent has also filed Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition No. 84/2019 under Section 125 of

the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month

from the first petitioner herein.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently

contended that having regard to the fact that the first

petitioner is a government servant who is serving in the

Department of Social Welfare and that the second

petitioner is aged about 65 years and the fact that the

petitioner No.3 is a married daughter living with her

husband and not with the petitioners No.1 and 2, and the

petitioner No.4 is a relative of first petitioner, there are

sufficient reasons for allowing the petition.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884

HC-KAR

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the second

respondent would vehemently contend that on a plain

reading of the written complaint given by the second

respondent, it is clear that the petitioners were aware of

the previous marriage of the second respondent. They

were also aware of the fact that second respondent was

paid permanent alimony of Rs. 8 lakhs. This is the main

reason why they started demanding from the second

respondent a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as dowry, for purchasing

a house. It is clearly stated in the complaint that at the

time of the marriage proposal between the first petitioner

and the second respondent, petitioners had raised a

demand of Rs.5 lakhs and 25 tolas of gold and in addition

a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards marriage expenses.

However, after the advise of the elders, the petitioners

accepted Rs.3 lakhs in cash, 15 tolas of gold and

Rs.50,000/- in addition. Various other details of the

payment made by the family members of the second

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884

HC-KAR

respondent to the petitioners are clearly found in the

written complaint given by the second respondent.

9. It is clearly stated that after attending the funeral

ceremony of the second respondent's father, the second

respondent came back to the matrimonial house. As soon

as the second respondent came back to the matrimonial

house after attending the funeral function of the second

respondent's father, the petitioners started raising

demands of dowry of Rs.20 lakhs, while clearly stating

that second respondent's father had retired as Assistant

Director in the Department of Social Welfare and he had

received big amount as retiral benefits and therefore

second respondent was asked to bring Rs.20 lakhs for

purchasing the house. It is stated in the complaint that

during January, 2018 the second respondent had gone to

her parental home to attend a jatra. When the second

respondent returned on 10.01.2018 along with her mother

and brother and another elderly person, the petitioners

prevented them from entering the house and raised

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884

HC-KAR

demand for Rs.20 lakhs. Even after repeated pleading,

the petitioners did not budge and they did not allow the

petitioner and her family members to enter the house of

the petitioners. The second respondent was sent back

with a demand to bring Rs.20 lakhs. It is also stated that

from January, the second respondent waited for nearly six

months and the first petitioner did not make any attempt

to bring the second respondent back to the matrimonial

house. The second respondent and her family members

along with three other elderly persons made another

attempt on 24.06.2018 to convince the petitioners to

permit the second respondent to lead her marital life with

the first petitioner, in her matrimonial home. However the

petitioners did not oblige.

10. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits

that on a plain reading of the written complaint, it is clear

that complete details of the offences committed by the

petitioners have been made out and that being the

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884

HC-KAR

position, it is submitted that the criminal petition is

required to be dismissed.

11. Learned Additional Government Advocate supports

the submission of the learned counsel for the second

respondent.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

the second respondent and the learned Additional

Government Advocate and on perusing the petition

papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that

although the written complaint and the FIR registered

accordingly make out a case against the petitioners No.1

and 2, nevertheless insofar as the petitioners No.3 and 4

are concerned, there is no sufficient cause of action to

proceed against the said petitioners.

13. Admittedly petitioner No.3 is the married daughter of

petitioner No.2 and the sister-in-law of the second

respondent herein. Insofar as petitioner No.4 is

concerned, in the written complaint the second respondent

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884

HC-KAR

has only stated that she is a relative of the first petitioner

and therefore it is difficult to understand as to how the

fourth respondent is roped in the allegation of dowry.

14. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the

considered opinion that on a plain reading of the FIR it is

clear that the allegations made against the petitioners

No.3 and 4 do not constitute any offence or make out a

case against the said petitioners.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Muppidi

Lakshmi Narayana Reddy & Ors. Vs. The State of

Andhra Pradesh & Anr.1 has held that there is no

specific date as to when the appellants therein visited

Guntur and joined accused Nos.1 to 3 in demanding dowry

from the defacto complainant. The Hon'ble Apex Court

has held that considering the growing trend of the dowry

victim arraigning the relatives of the husband, the Apex

Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of

2025 SCC OnLine SC 884

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8884

HC-KAR

Uttar Pradesh & Anr.2 has deprecated the practice of

involving the relatives of the husband for offences under

Section 498-A of IPC and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961.

16. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the

following order:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed in part;

(ii) The criminal prosecution in C.C. No. 265/2019

(HWPS Crime No. 28/2018) on the file of the learned

Second Addl. Sr. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Ranebennur,

for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 109

read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, is quashed insofar as the

petitioners No.3 and 4 are concerned;

(2012) 10 SCC 741