Partly allowed

Sri. Sathish R v. State by

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2026CRL.P/5410/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge sheet filed under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court quashed proceedings against the mother-in-law and two sisters-in-law (accused Nos. 2 to 4) finding only omnibus allegations of instigating the husband, with no specific material showing they subjected the complainant to cruelty. The court noted these relatives were not residing with the complainant. However, the petition was rejected as to the husband (accused No. 1) because specific allegations of mental cruelty and dowry demand were attributed to him, warranting trial.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings quashed against accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (mother-in-law and sisters-in-law); petition rejected as to accused No. 1 (husband).

Sri. Sathish R Vs State by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:50472 CRL.P No. 5410 of 2019

¶4

CNR: KAHC010221252019

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5410 OF 2019

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI SATHISH R., S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: ACCOUNTANT R/AT NO.153, SAYIBABA NAGARA NEAR ANUPAMA SCHOOL ANDHRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU CITY PIN: 560091

¶12

(ADDRESS AS PER CHARGE SHEET)

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.236, LAKSHMI NIVASA AHSRAYA LAYOUT BOMMANAKATTE VINOBHANAGARA SHIVAMOGGA PIN: 577204

¶15

SMT. PUSHPA W/O VEERESHA H AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT 60^TH MAIN BENKINAGARA SHIVAMOGGA

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:50472 CRL.P No. 5410 of 2019

¶17

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CNR: KAHC010221252019

¶20

PIN: 577215.

¶21

SMT. NANDHINI W/O NAGESH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT KENCHAPPA LAYOUT, SHIVAMOGGA PIN: 577204.

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. M.S. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

STATE BY BYDARAHALLI PS MAGADI SUB-DIVISION RAMANAGARA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.

¶26

SMT. REKHA K.J. W/O SATHISH R, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT # 5/9, ANJANADRI NILAYA # 153 SAYIBABA NAGARA NEAR ANUPAMA SCHOOL ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU CITY PIN: 560005.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA N. & SRI. S.N. SAMEER, ADVOCATES)

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN

¶30

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:50472 CRL.P No. 5410 of 2019

¶33

CNR: KAHC010221252019

¶34

C.C.NO.2581/2019, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHAABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A, 34 IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961.

¶35

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant.

¶39

The prayer sought before this Court by the accused persons is to quash filing of charge sheet against the petitioners in C.C.No.2581/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶40

The allegation made in the charge sheet is that these petitioners have indulged in subjecting the complainant for mental cruelty demanding the dowry and accepted the same. The marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 17.02.2017 and complaint was given on 23.12.2017, wherein allegation is made that her marriage was

¶41

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:50472 CRL.P No. 5410 of 2019

¶44

CNR: KAHC010221252019

¶45

performed in Sri Seetharama Kalyana Mantapa, Shivamogga. At the time of marriage, Rs.1,10,000/- cash, 20 grams gold bracelet, 35 grams mangalya chain, necklace, 15 grams hanging and 1 kg. of silver articles were given. Subsequently, the husband subjected her for mental cruelty and also demanded an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry and motherin-law and sister-in-laws also subjected her for mental and physical cruelty.

¶46

The counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that an omnibus allegation is made against mother-in-law and sister-in-laws. The counsel would contend that both husband and wife are residing at Bengaluru and mother of petitioner No.1 owns a site at Shivamogga and before the marriage itself, the petitioner No.1 in the year 2016 borrowed the loan from others to construct the house in the said site at Shivamogga. Since, the petitioner No.1 is working as Accountant in a construction company in Bengaluru, before the marriage itself, the respondent No.1 took all the responsibility to construct the house in Shivamogga and after the construction of the house, he allowed his mother to reside

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:50472 CRL.P No. 5410 of 2019

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

CNR: KAHC010221252019

¶50

in the newly constructed house and he started to pay the loan amount. It is also the contention of petitioner No.1 that he is the only son and he has to look after his mother and he has to maintain his family and the respondent No.2 started to harass the petitioner No.1 while making the loan payment on which the petitioner No.1 borrowed the loan for construction of the house. The counsel also vehemently contend that a false complaint is filed against the petitioners making false allegation and the allegation made in the complaint is not supported by any material and with regard to conducting Panchayath also, though recorded the statement of witnesses and the said statement is hearsay. Hence, there cannot be proceedings against the petitioners.

¶51

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-complainant submits that the witnesses, who have been cited in the charge sheet are C.W.1-complainant, C.W.2 and C.W.3 are the parents of the complainant and C.W.4 is the brother of the complainant. C.W.5 to C.W.9 are the persons, who were present at the time of marriage talk and also the Panchayath and the statement of these witnesses

¶52

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:50472 CRL.P No. 5410 of 2019

¶55

CNR: KAHC010221252019

¶56

C.W.5 to C.W.9 is very clear with regard to demand made and Panchayath conducted. Hence, matter requires trial.

¶57

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 would submit that during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of witnesses and statement of witnesses is very specific and matter requires trial.

¶58

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant, no doubt, C.W.1 to C.W.4 are the complainant and her family members, the other witnesses C.W.5 to C.W.9 are independent witnesses. The counsel appearing for the petitioner also brought to notice of this Court statement of these witnesses' and having perused the statement of these witnesses, those statements are only hearsay that complainant was informing about subjecting her for mental and physical harassment and so also, relied upon the statement of owner one Sri Shivashankarappa as well as statement of neighbouring witnesses Smt. Nagarathna and Smt. Jayalakshmi. Having

¶59

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:50472 CRL.P No. 5410 of 2019

¶62

CNR: KAHC010221252019

¶63

perused their statements also, the statement is that instigating to demand additional amount and having perused statement of those witnesses' also, it is nothing but a hearsay statement as per the complainant version. When such being the case and though cited that they are the Panchayatars in the charge sheet, but no such statements are made by those witnesses that they have participated in the Panchayath.

¶64

Having perused the statements of those witnesses, nothing is stated with regard to the allegations made in the complaint. When such being the material on record, though specific allegations are made against the husband, both the complainant and husband were residing at Bangalore. But, the mother-in-law and sister-in-laws were not residing along with the complainant and except omnibus allegation that they are also instigating the husband, nothing is placed on record. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and only included mother-in-law and sister-in-laws in the complaint and the same amounts to false implication.

¶65

The Apex Court also in several judgments held that

¶66

it is nothing but robbing of all the family members of the

¶67

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:50472 CRL.P No. 5410 of 2019

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

CNR: KAHC010221252019

¶70

husband, that too, invoking Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and unless specific material and allegations are made that they also subjected her for cruelty. The omnibus statement that they have instigated the husband to subject her for cruelty cannot be a ground to proceed against them in a criminal prosecution. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in respect of accused Nos.2 to 4 i.e., mother-in-law and sister-in-laws and in respect of husband i.e., accused No.1 is concerned, having perused the complaint as well as statement of complainant, specific allegations are attributed against him. Hence, matter requires trial in respect of accused No.1-husband is concerned.

¶71