Dismissed¶73

Smt. D Vasantha Kumari v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Jan 2026CRL.P/174/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), Sachin Shankar Magadum, J., 27.01.2026; CRL.P No.174/2026 c/w CRL.P No.194/2026; quashing of charge sheet in C.C.No.200/2025 (Tumakuru Women PS); offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; Section 482 Cr.PC inherent jurisdiction; Section 528 BNSS; prima facie incriminating material on charge sheet; vague/exaggerated allegations are matters for trial; interference would stifle legitimate prosecution; both criminal petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

On a careful examination of the charge sheet papers, prima facie incriminating material is available against both the husband and the in-laws; at the quashing stage the Court cannot undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or assess the veracity of the allegations. ¶67

Smt. D Vasantha Kumari Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶73

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.200/2025 against the husband and the in-laws for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC / Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

The petitioners' contention that the allegations are absurd, doubtful or exaggerated are matters which require adjudication during trial and cannot constitute a ground to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

¶67

Ratio / Principle

¶67

Key takeaways

In the presence of prima facie material, no case is made out for exercising the inherent powers to quash the proceedings, as interference at that stage would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution.ratio¶72

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petitions (CRL.P No.174/2026 by the parents-in-law; CRL.P No.194/2026 by the husband) under Section 482 Cr.PC / Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.200/2025 on the file of the II Addl. Judge, Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru, arising from a charge sheet for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act — HELD: the charge sheet discloses specific allegations of harassment and ill-treatment against the husband and the in-laws, who resided under a common roof with the complainant, and prima facie incriminating material is available against all the accused; contentions that the allegations are vague, exaggerated, absurd or inherently improbable are matters for adjudication at trial and cannot constitute a ground to invoke inherent jurisdiction; in the presence of prima facie material, no case for quashing is made out and interference would stifle a legitimate prosecution — both petitions dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:4316 CRL.P No. 174/2026 C/w CRL.P.NO.194/2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.174/2026

¶9

C/W

¶10

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.194/2026

¶11

IN CRL.P.NO.174/2026

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

SMT. D VASANTHA KUMARI W/O SRI DILIP KUMAR. G AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶14

SRI DILIP KUMAR. G., S/O SRI. K. GAJARAJAN MUDALYAR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶15

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

BOTH ARE PERMANENT ADDRESS AT NO.341, 8^TH MAIN, 52^ND CROSS NEAR RAM MANDIR TEMPLE 4^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010.

¶17

NOW R/AT NO.754 13^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK NEAR M.K. BUSHRA SUPER MARKET RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010,

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. THEJASWINI G.,ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TUMKURU WOMEN PS TUMKURU

¶22

REP BY, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:4316 CRL.P No. 174/2026 C/w CRL.P.NO.194/2026

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA OPPOSITE TO VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶27

SMT. AMRUTHA. W/O SRI. SHREYAS. D DAUGHTER OF SRI SUKUMAR. T AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS NOW RESIDING AT 830 6^TH CROSS, KADAMBA ROAD NEAR SESHADRIPURAM COLLEGE TUDA LAYOUT TUMKURU 572105.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1;

¶30

NOTICE TO R2 IS DEFERRED FOR TIME BEING V/O/DATED 19.01.2026)

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED UNDER SECTION 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS C.C.NO.200/2025 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, TUMAKURU WOMEN PS, TUMAKURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 IPC, 1860 AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDGE, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, AT TUMAKURU.

¶32

IN CRL.P.NO.194/2026

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

SRI. SHREYAS D S/O SIRI DILIP KUMAR G AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶35

PERMANENT ADDRESS AT NO.341, 8^TH MAIN, 52^ND CROSS NEAR RAM MANDIR TEMPLE 4^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010.

¶36

NOW R/AT NO.754 13^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK NEAR M.K. BUSHRA SUPER MARKET RAJAJINAGAR

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:4316 CRL.P No. 174/2026 C/w CRL.P.NO.194/2026

¶38

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

BENGALURU-560 010 …PETITIONER

¶41

(BY SRI. THEJASWINI G.,ADVOCATE)

¶42

AND:

¶43

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TUMKURU WOMEN PS TUMKURU REP BY, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA OPPOSITE TO VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶44

SMT. AMRUTHA. W/O SRI. SHREYAS. D DAUGHTER OF SRI SUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS NOW RESIDING AT 830 6^TH CROSS, KADAMBA ROAD NEAR SESHADRIPURAM COLLEGE TUDA LAYOUT TUMKURU 572105.

¶45

…RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1;

¶47

NOTICE TO R2 IS DEFERRED FOR TIME BEING V/O/DATED 19.01.2026)

¶48

¶49

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:4316 CRL.P No. 174/2026 C/w CRL.P.NO.194/2026

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶54

ORAL ORDER

¶55

These petitions are filed by in-laws and husband seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.200/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1962.

¶56

Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint alleging acts of dowry harassment and ill-treatment at the hands of her husband as well as his family members. Pursuant to registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer conducted investigation and on completion thereof, has laid a charge sheet not only against the husband but also against the inlaws. Aggrieved by the filing of the charge sheet, the in-laws have approached this Court by filing Criminal Petition No.174/2026 seeking quashing of the proceedings. The principal contention urged is that the allegations made in the complaint are vague, exaggerated and inherently improbable and that, despite there being no incriminating material

¶57

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:4316 CRL.P No. 174/2026 C/w CRL.P.NO.194/2026

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

collected during investigation, the Investigating Officer has mechanically arrayed them as accused.

¶60

It is further contended by the petitioners/in-laws that they are residents of Bengaluru and have been falsely implicated only with an intent to harass them. According to them, compelling them to face a criminal trial at Tumkur, in the absence of any prima facie material, would amount to an abuse of process of law, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

¶61

Similarly, the husband has filed Criminal Petition No.194/2026 contending that a false and motivated complaint has been lodged by the wife. It is asserted that, in the absence of prima facie incriminating material, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet at the instance of the complainant, only to harass the petitioner/husband and his parents. On these grounds, the husband also seeks quashing of the proceedings.

¶62

This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, and the learned High Court Government

¶63

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:4316 CRL.P No. 174/2026 C/w CRL.P.NO.194/2026

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Pleader. This Court has also carefully perused the charge sheet and the materials placed along with it.

¶66

A perusal of the charge sheet materials prima facie reveals that the complainant, her husband and the in-laws were residing under a common roof. The complaint contains specific allegations not only against the husband but also against the in-laws with regard to acts of harassment and ill-treatment. Acting on the complaint, the Investigating Officer has registered the crime, conducted investigation and thereafter filed a detailed charge sheet.

¶67

On a careful examination of the charge sheet papers, this Court finds that prima facie incriminating material is available against both the husband and the in-laws. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or assess the veracity of the allegations. The contention urged by the petitioners that the allegations are absurd, doubtful or exaggerated are matters which require adjudication during trial and cannot constitute a ground to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of

¶68

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:4316 CRL.P No. 174/2026 C/w CRL.P.NO.194/2026

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

Criminal Procedure / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶72

In the presence of prima facie material, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for exercising inherent powers to quash the proceedings. Interference at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution.

¶73

For the foregoing reasons, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶74

Accordingly, Criminal Petition No.174/2026 and Criminal Petition No.194/2026 are dismissed .

¶75

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶76

PKN

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Smt. D Vasantha Kumari v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. D Vasantha Kumari v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anitha K S Vs K Ravindra

Sri Mohammed Shoiab Ulla N Vs Smt. Nasreen Sultana

M/S Wipro Enterprises Private Limited Vs Mr Ratnesh Pandey

Mr Faisal Mukhtar Vs State of Karnataka

The Head Master Vs Akshatha M.D.

Yuvraj Singh Vs v M Chakravarthy