[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Kamal Kishore S/O. Raju vs Sandhya W/O. Kamal Kishore on 5 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1690
CRL.P No. 103370 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103552 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.103370 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.103552 OF 2024
IN CRL.P.NO.103370/2025
BETWEEN:
1. KAMAL KISHORE S/O. RAJU
AGE 31 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS
2. SMT. RAJINI W/O. RAJU
AGE 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS
3. RAJU SHINDHI
AGE 57 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS
ALL ARE R/O. DR. SHARMAS HOUSE
2ND FLOOR, T.K.STREET, GOLLARAHATTI,
BALLARI DIST 583201.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
AND:
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
SANDHYA W/O. KAMAL KISHORE
Dharwad Bench.
AGE.28 YEARS,
R/O. FLOWER STREET, BALLARI-583201.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NARAYANAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN THE
PROCEEDINGS IN CRL. MISC (DV) NO. 01/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF THE IST ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.-BALLARI, IS
LIABLE TO BE QUASHED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 20, AND 23 OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1690
CRL.P No. 103370 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103552 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN CRL.P.NO.103552/2024
BETWEEN:
1. KAMAL KISHORE S/O M. RAJU
AGE 31 YEARS, OCC. FACTORY WORKER
2. RAJANI W/O M. RAJU
AGE 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE
3. RAJA S/O MOHANDAS
AGE 54 YEARS, OCC. SELF WORK,
ALL ARE R/O. DR. SHARMAS HOUSE, TK STREET,
GOULERAHATTI, BALLARI 583201.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH WOMEN P.S. BALLARI
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD 580001.
2. SMT. SANDHYA S. D/O LATE S. SHRINIVA ACHAR
W/O KAMAL KISHORE,
AGE 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. DR. SHARMAS HOUSE 2ND FLOOR,
STREET, GOULERAHATTI, BALLARI 583201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. NAYANA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SE. 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.
528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR, AND
CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 49/2021 BY WOMEN PS BALLARI AND
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 1549/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/SEC. 498(A), 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 4 OF
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1690
CRL.P No. 103370 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103552 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri B.Anwar Basha, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri Nayana Kumar, learned counsel and Smt.Kirtilata
R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that
there is arrears of maintenance of more than Rs.2,00,000/- at
the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. Since maintenance is not
paid, Crl.P.No. 103370/2025 deserves to be dismissed for non
prosecution.
3. A complaint came to be lodged by respondent-
Smt.Sandhya with Ballari Women Police Station, alleging that on
29.10.2020 she got married to the petitioner No.1 and it was a
love marriage. After the marriage, she joined the matrimonial
home and for a period of one month, first petitioner looked after
well and thereafter, demanded dowry.
4. When the respondent/complainant was unable to meet the
demands of the petitioners, they started to ill treat complainant
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1690
HC-KAR
and there was physical and mental harassment meted out to her
by the petitioners.
5. When the complainant was in her three months'
pregnancy, on 28.03.2021, there was an ugly incident wherein
all the petitioners have harassed the complainant physically and
mentally, whereby the complainant fell down and lost her
conscious. Her husband intimated the parents of the
complainant who came to the house of the petitioners and then
took her to their home. Thereafter, husband and wife are living
separately.
6. Police after registering the case thoroughly investigated the
matter and filed charge sheet.
7. Sri Anwar Basha, learned counsel for the petitioners has
now challenged the taking of cognizance and issue of process.
8. He would contend that the self-serving testimony of the
complainant alone would not be sufficient enough to attract the
ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506, r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1690
HC-KAR
9. He would also contend that, there was a love affair
between the complainant and petitioner No.1. Therefore, there
cannot be any demand for dowry and sought for quashing the
pending proceedings.
10. Per contra, Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court
Government Pleader and Sri Nayana Kumar, learned counsel for
the respondent No.2/complainant, would support the impugned
order of taking cognizance and would contend that material
collected in the charge sheet would be sufficient enough to
proceed with the criminal case and sought for dismissal of the
petitions.
11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
12. On such perusal of the material on record, in the complaint
itself, there are specific allegations leveled against the
petitioners.
13. Admittedly, proceeding that has been initiated against the
first petitioner is under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act.
There is no compliance of the order passed by the learned Trial
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1690
HC-KAR
Magistrate in payment of maintenance. There is a huge arrears
of more than Rs.2,00,000/- payable by the first petitioner
towards the maintenance ordered by the learned Trial
Magistrate.
14. Further, specific instance has been spelt out by the
complainant in the complaint itself as to what transpired on
28.03.2021 in the matrimonial house.
15. The material collected by the Investigation Agency would
be sufficient enough to proceed with the criminal case.
16. Expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter a this
stage would hamper the rights of the parties during the trial one
way or the other.
17. The grounds urged in the petition are more in the nature of
defence that is to be canvassed before the Trial Court in the
pending trial.
18. Taking note of the same, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no case is made out to quash the pending criminal
case.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1690
HC-KAR
19. Hence the following:
ORDER
(i) Crl.P.No.103552/2024 is dismissed.
(ii) Crl.P.No.103370/2025 is dismissed for non
prosecution for non payment of arrears of
maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
kcm
Ct-cmu
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 52
