Dismissed

Smt Sowmya S O v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2026CRL.P/6630/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the Trial Court's partial rejection of an application to produce additional documents — specifically a Family Court order and an anticipatory bail order — in a prosecution for offences under Sections 498A, 313 and 506 IPC. The Court held that those documents were not relevant to deciding the charged offences, while photographs from the engagement and marriage were rightly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Trial Court order rejecting production of Family Court order and anticipatory bail order upheld.

Smt Sowmya S O Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:50790 CRL.P No. 6630 of 2019

¶2

¶3

CNR: KAHC010290312019

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6630 OF 2019

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SOWMYA S.O., W/O DR. RAVIKUMAR S., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.1946/03, 5^TH MAIN, 15^TH CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577002.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. PAVANA B.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE WOMEN POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

DR. RAVI KUAMR S., S/O B. SURENDAR NAIK, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT GURUKRUPA 1^ST STAGE, 4^TH CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD, VINOBHA NAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577002.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:50790 CRL.P No. 6630 of 2019

¶21

CNR: KAHC010290312019

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2019 IN S.C.NO.100/2014 (PAGE NO.11) ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE, IN SO FAR AS REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR RECEIVING THE OTHER DOCUMENTS AND STATEMENT IN EVIDENCE AS SET OUT IN PF NO.3/2018 OF SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE SHEET DATED 31.01.2018.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶27

2. Having perused the order passed by the Trial Court, the Trial Court allowed the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in part taking note of the fact that the case was filed in 2014 and an application was filed in 2018 for production of additional documents. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the documents which are sought to be produced by the Investigating Officer i.e., order passed by the Family Court as well as the anticipatory bail order are not necessary documents for this case. With respect to the production of documents i.e.,

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:50790 CRL.P No. 6630 of 2019

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CNR: KAHC010290312019

¶31

photographs which were taken at the time of engagement and marriage are necessary for the case and the same were permitted. The rejection order is in respect of the order passed by the Family Court as well as the anticipatory bail order. The Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that the order of the anticipatory bail as well as the order passed by the Family Court are not necessary to decide the issue involved between the parties, since the offences invoked against the petitioner is for the offences under Sections 498A, 313 and 506 of IPC. In order to consider the offence under Sections 498A, 313 and 506 of IPC, the order of the Family Court as well as the order of anticipatory bail are not relevant and hence, I do not find any grounds to entertain this petition.

¶32

3. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶33

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶34

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Smt Sowmya S O v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sowmya S O v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases