Husband and in-laws sought quashing of a dowry-cruelty complaint filed five days after the husband served a restitution of conjugal rights notice. Finding no prima-facie material for dowry demand or injury, the High Court held the proceedings an abuse of process and quashed them.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:3070 CRL.P No. 6997 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6997 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
PET NO.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT GOVINDAPURA VILLAGE, BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK - 577 548.
Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka
W/O. MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT JIGANEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK - 577 548.
(BY SRI. ANIKETH K.U., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2026:KHC:3070 CRL.P No. 6997 of 2018
HC-KAR
2. SAVITHRI
W/O. NETHRANANDA @ ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT GOVINDAPURA VILLAGE, BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 548.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL SPP FOR R1
R2 SD)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.695/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KADUR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498-A, 323, 504 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.695 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Kadur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
NC: 2026:KHC:3070 CRL.P No. 6997 of 2018
HC-KAR
No.1. Respondent No.2 though she was served with notice, remained absent. Perused the materials on record.
"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
are the mother, father and sister of accused No.1 respectively. The marriage between respondent No.2 and accused No.1 was performed on 26.08.2011. The materials on record disclose that
HC-KAR
accused No.1 had requested Kadur Police by filing representation, asking them to advice his wife i.e. respondent No.2 to join him in the matrimonial house. This representation is dated 28.11.2017. The materials on record also disclose that accused No.1 had issued the legal notice dated 21.12.2017 to respondent No.2, seeking restitution of conjugal rights stating that she had been to her parents house and had not returned to the matrimonial house. It is stated that within 4-5 days, the notice was served on respondent No.2.
her from entering the matrimonial house. There is no
NC: 2026:KHC:3070 CRL.P No. 6997 of 2018
HC-KAR
explanation as to why respondent No.2 has not filed the complaint immediately on 20.12.2017 or at least on the following day. The complaint came to be filed on 26.12.2017, i.e., five days after accused No.1 issued the legal notice for restitution of conjugal rights, as per the postal receipt and acknowledgement pertaining to the legal notice, the notice is served on respondent No.2. Prima-facie service of notice seeking restitution of conjugal rights led to filing of this complaint.
HC-KAR
must be some prima-facie materials to form an opinion for the
purpose of accepting the allegations. Since no such materials are placed before the Court, I am of the opinion that the initiation and continuation of the criminal proceedings against
the petitioners is in abuse of process of law. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed.
the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
2018, pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Kadur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 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
1 issue framed by the court
Do the petitioners have grounds to quash the criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 DP Act?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Nethrananda @ Ananda
T. Thimmappa
Susheelamma
Lalithamma
State of Karnataka by Kadur P.S.
Savithri
M G Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
