Karnataka High Court
Sri Kirtiraj vs State Of Karnataka on 3 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:6106
CRL.P No. 9514 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9514 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SRI KIRTIRAJ
S/O KESHAVRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
VIDE ORDER DATED 02.07.24
PETITIONER NO.1 IS DELETED.
2. SRI KESHAVRAJ
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
3. SMT. PREMARAJ
W/O. KESHAVRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
ALL RESIDING AT
NO.160, 8TH CROSS,
10TH A MAIN, INDIRANAGAR,
Digitally signed BANGALORE - 560 038.
by PRASHANTH
NV ...PETITIONERS
Location: High (BY SRI. PRAMOD NAIR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
Court of
Karnataka SRI. VIVEK S., ADVOCATE A/W
SMT. ANANYA GUDIHAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY INDIRANAGAR PS
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. MRS. AISWARYA
W/O KIRTHI KESHAV RAJ,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:6106
CRL.P No. 9514 of 2018
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
NO.152, 6TH CROSS,
2ND MAIN, 1ST STAGE,
MYSORE CITY, KARNATAKA-570017
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP FOR R1
SRI. RAJATH S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.54609/2016 INITIATED AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE X
A.C.M.M., MAYO HALL, BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners being accused Nos.2 and 3 in CC.No.54069 of 2016 on the file of the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo-Hall, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 354 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, 'the D.P. Act'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
2. Heard Sri Pramod Nair, learned senior advocate for Sri Vivek S., learned counsel along with Smt.Ananya Gudihal, -3- NC: 2026:KHC:6106 CRL.P No. 9514 of 2018 HC-KAR learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Asma Kouser, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri Rajath S, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, 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. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that she married accused No.1 on 21.06.2013. The complaint came to be filed on 19.01.2016. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. As per the allegations made in the first information, there was demand for dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. Out of which, Rs.5,00,000/- was paid, 600 grams of gold -4- NC: 2026:KHC:6106 CRL.P No. 9514 of 2018 HC-KAR ornaments, 4 kgs of silver and house-hold articles worth of Rs.2,00,000/- were given at the time of marriage.
5. It is also alleged that accused No.2 being the father- in-law misbehaved with her by holding her hand when her husband and mother-in-law i.e. accused Nos.1 and 3 were away at Mantralayam and thereby he committed the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC.
6. It is stated that both accused No.1 and respondent No.2 are software Engineers, working at Infosys at the time of marriage. During the pendency of this petition, accused No.1 died and the petition filed by him stood abated. Under such circumstances, the allegations made against accused Nos.2 and 3 are taken into consideration
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the copy of the petition filed by respondent No.2 before the Family Court at Mysuru, registered in M.C.No.521 of 2016 under Section 13 (1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce. This petition was filed by respondent No.2 seeking divorce on 27.08.2016, whereas the present complaint is dated 19.01.2016. Even though there is reference to the incident that had occurred during March - April, 2014, in the petition that -5- NC: 2026:KHC:6106 CRL.P No. 9514 of 2018 HC-KAR was filed, it is stated that accused No.1 was away at Mantralayam, and accused Nos.2 and 3 were in the house, they abused her in filthy language. When the complainant was in the matrimonial house, she was not provided with food and she was made to starve. Thereafter, she admitted to Chinmaya Mission Hospital (CMH), Indiranagar, Bangalore on 13.02.2014. But in the first information dated 19.01.2016, entirely different version is given that, accused Nos.1 and 3 had been to Mantralayam and she was alone in the house along with accused No.2 when he held her hand and misbehaved, and tried to outrage her modesty. Accused No.1 later returned from Mantralayam and found her unconscious admitted her in the CM Hospital. Unfortunately, no medical records are produced in support of her contention.
7. Even though serious allegations are made against accused No.2 regarding commission of the offence under Section 354 of IPC, the same is contradicted by respondent No.2 by narrating a different story while filing the divorce petition before the Family Court. Even demand and acceptance of dowry is not supported by any prima facie materials. When respondent No.2 is a qualified software Engineer working in -6- NC: 2026:KHC:6106 CRL.P No. 9514 of 2018 HC-KAR Infosys, I do not find any reasons for her to accept the demand made by accused for payment of dowry. Even with regard to demand and acceptance of dowry, there are inconsistent versions making such allegations to remain only as an allegation without any prima facie materials.
8. Hon'ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others Vs. State of Telangana and another1 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, 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) 1 2024 INSC 953 -7- NC: 2026:KHC:6106 CRL.P No. 9514 of 2018 HC-KAR
9. It also refers to its earlier decision in Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand2 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)
10. In Smt. Neera Singh Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi)3, 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 2 (2010) 7 SCC 667 3 138(2007) DLT 152 -8- NC: 2026:KHC:6106 CRL.P No. 9514 of 2018 HC-KAR 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 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.
11. On perusal of these decisions, the position of law is very clear that, 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 -9- NC: 2026:KHC:6106 CRL.P No. 9514 of 2018 HC-KAR materials available on record. It is further clear that, 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 fancy of the complainant with the intent to cause harassment. The allegations relating to dowry made after breakdown of marriage must be examined with circumspection, and that exaggerated or unsupported claims regarding dowry or marriage expenses should be verified in accordance with the provisions and procedural requirements under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Rules.
12. In the present case there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint which is also not explained. There are no prima facie materials to support the allegations made in the first information or in the charge sheet, which prima facie disclose that the same are made with an intention to prosecute the petitioners before the Criminal Court. It is definitely an abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.
13. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6106 CRL.P No. 9514 of 2018 HC-KAR ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The criminal proceedings initiated in CC.No.54069 of 2016 on the file of the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo-Hall, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 354 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, is hereby quashed against the petitioners.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4