[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:9059
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
NC: 2026:KHC:9059
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
NC: 2026:KHC:9059
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
NC: 2026:KHC:9059
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
2024 INSC 369
NC: 2026:KHC:9059
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:9059
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,
1992 SCC (CRI) 426
2024 INSC 953
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9059
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)
(2010) 7 SCC 667
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9059
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
138(2007) DLT 152
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9059
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
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
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
