Partly allowed¶70

Indrani v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2026CRL.P/9622/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing; S.482 Cr.P.C.; dowry and cruelty case under Ss.498A, 504, 323, 114 r/w 34 IPC and Ss.3, 4, 6 Dowry Prohibition Act; omnibus/general allegations against relatives of husband; abuse of process of law; partial quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.2090/2021 (Crime No.2/2021, Women Police Station, Davanagere); proceedings continued against accused No.2; Covid-19 lockdown delay in FIR; High Court of Karnataka; M G Uma, J.; CRL.P No.9622 of 2021; decided 19-01-2026.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed in part: proceedings in Crime No.2/2021 / C.C.No.2090/2021 quashed against petitioner Nos.2 to 8 (accused Nos.3 to 9); petition of petitioner No.1 (accused No.2) dismissed and proceedings against her continue. ¶70

Indrani Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?

¶45

Court's answer

Initiation of criminal proceedings against accused Nos.3 to 9 (petitioner Nos.2 to 8) is an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed, their allegations being bald, general and omnibus and not attracting the penal provisions invoked.

¶60

Ratio / Principle

Criminal proceedings against petitioner No.1 (accused No.2) are liable to be continued in view of the specific and serious allegations made against her.

¶60

Key takeaways

Accused Nos.3 to 9 are residing separately at Sandur, Bengaluru and Badami, a fact not disputed by respondent No.2's counsel, supporting the conclusion that allegations against them are general and omnibus.ratio¶56
The contention that respondent No.2 was forced to suffer silently during the Covid-19 lockdown, explaining the delay in lodging the first information, cannot be ruled out; hence the delay does not discredit the allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. by accused Nos.2 to 9 in Crime No.2/2021 of Women Police Station, Davanagere, pending in C.C.No.2090/2021 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere, for offences under Sections 498A, 504, 323 and 114 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the first information of the wife (respondent No.2) alleging dowry demand, cruelty and assault. Held, answering the point partly in the affirmative and allowing the petition in part: (i) specific and serious allegations, including residence in the matrimonial house, are made against accused Nos.1 and 2 (husband and sister-in-law), and the explanation of Covid-19 lockdown for the delay in lodging the first information cannot be ruled out; proceedings against petitioner No.1/accused No.2 therefore continue; (ii) allegations against accused Nos.3 to 9 (petitioner Nos.2 to 8), who reside separately at Sandur, Bengaluru and Badami, are bald, general and omnibus and do not attract the penal provisions invoked; their prosecution is an abuse of process of law and is quashed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 9622 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9622 OF 2021

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

INDRANI

¶11

D/O BAGANNA KALAL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT #4-041 WARD NO.27 NEAR MADINA MASIDI, JALANJANEYA TEMPLE CHAPPARADA HALLI, HOSPET BELLARY DISTRICT-583201.

¶12

PARASHURAMA

¶13

S/O KALAL THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT #256 NARASAPURA MAIN ROAD DONNEMALAI (F) D.T. SHIP SANDURU, BELLARY DISTRICT-583118.

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SANVI

¶16

W/O PARASHURAMA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT #256 NARASAPURA MAIN ROAD DONNEMALAI (F) D T SHIP SANDURU, BELLARY DISTRICT-583118.

¶17

JYOTHI KALAL D/O KALAL THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT #4-041, WARD NO.27 NEAR MADINA MASIDI, JALANJANEYA TEMPLE, CHAPPARADA HALLI, HOSPET

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 9622 of 2021

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 201.

¶22

SANTHOSH KALAL S/O KALAL THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WORKING AT ACCRETE HITECH SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, 9^TH FLOOR DISCOVERER BUILDING ITPL WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560066 AND ALSO RESIDING AT NO.23 NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE OPPOSITE TO NAGAWARA BUS STAND, HBR LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 045.

¶23

BHAGYAMMA @ BHAGIRATHI KALAL W/O KALAL THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT #4-041, WARD NO.27 NEAR MADINA MASIDI, JALANJANEYA TEMPLE, CHAPPARADA HALLI, HOSPET BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 201.

¶24

SATHISH KALAL D/O KALAL THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT #2561 NEAR THRISHAP NO.3 NARASINGAPURA, D.T. SHIP SANDURU, BELLARY DISTRICT-583118.

¶25

DASHARATHA (KALAL) THIGARIKAR S/O SURESH KALAL AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT NETHAJINAGARA VTC - MUDDEBIHAL VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586212.

¶26

…PETITIONERS

¶27

(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 9622 of 2021

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

AND:

¶32

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SHO WOMEN POLICE STATION DAVANAGERE (REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶33

KOMALA H W/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST MAIN JALINAGARA, DAVANAGERE - 577 004.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SMT. SOWMYA .R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. BALUMAHENDRA Y.H., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶36

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.2/2021 (C.C.NO.2090/2021) REGISTERED BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONOURABLE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A), 504, 323, 114 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3, 4 AND 6 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

¶37

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 9622 of 2021

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

The petitioners being accused Nos.2 to 9 in Crime No.2/2021 of Women Police Station, Davanagere, now pending in C.C.No.2090/2021 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323 and 114 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for Short, 'the D.P. Act'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

¶43

Heard Sri. Shivashankarappa, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Sowmya R., learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri.Balumahendra Y.H., learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

¶44

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶45

"Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 9622 of 2021

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

My answer to the above point is 'partly in the affirmative' for the following:

¶50

REASONS

¶51

Respondent No.2 being the wife of accused No.1, filed the first information with Women Police Station, Davanagere on 07.01.2021 against accused Nos.1 to 9 alleging that, she married accused No.1 during October, 2019 and started residing in the matrimonial house along with accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.2 is the sister of accused No.1, accused Nos.3 to 9 are their relatives. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that at the time of marriage, there was demand and acceptance of dowry, and even thereafter the accused have demanded additional dowry and she was being treated cruelly and she was even being assaulted, thereby the accused have committed the offences under various provisions of IPC and D.P. Act.

¶52

The investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet came to be filed. As per the first information, column No.17 of the charge sheet and as per the statements of various witnesses, specific and serious allegations are made against accused Nos.1 and 2, who are husband and sister-in-law of

¶53

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 9622 of 2021

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

respondent No.2 and they were residing along with her in the matrimonial house. The allegations against other accused are bald and general. The materials on record disclose that, accused Nos.3 to 9 are residing separately at Sandur, Bengaluru and Badami. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for respondent No.2. Even according to the learned counsel for respondent No.2, it is only accused Nos.1 and 2 who have committed the high-handed acts, ousted respondent No.2 out of the matrimonial house by assaulting her. The allegations made by respondent No.2 also discloses that, it was she who snatched the gold and silver ornaments and demanded additional dowry by abusing her in filthy language. Even though there is delay in lodging the first information, the materials on record disclose that since from 07.02.2020, there is allegation against accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶57

The contention of respondent No.2 that since there was lockdown in view of Covid situation, she was forced to suffer silently cannot be ruled out. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the allegations made against accused Nos.1 and 2 are very serious in nature. However, the allegations made against accused Nos.3 to 9 are bald and general, they are

¶58

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 9622 of 2021

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

omnibus in nature. They do not attract any of the penal provisions referred to above. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that initiation of the criminal proceedings against accused Nos.3 to 9 who are petitioner Nos.2 to 8 in the present petition is an abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. However, the criminal proceedings against petitioner No.1-accused No.2 is liable to be continued in view of the specific and serious allegations made against him. Hence, I answer the above point 'partly in the affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed in part.

¶63

(ii) The criminal petition filed by petitioner No.1accused No.2 is dismissed.

¶64

(iii) The petition filed by petitioner Nos.2 to 8 / accused Nos.3 to 9 is allowed.

¶65

(iii) The criminal proceedings initiated in Crime No.2/2021 of Women Police Station, Davanagere, pending in C.C.No.2090/2021 on

¶66

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 9622 of 2021

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil

¶70

Judge and JMFC, Davanagere, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 323 and 114 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act, is hereby quashed against petitioner Nos.2 to 8 / accused Nos.3 to 9.

¶71

SD/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶72

MKM

¶73

CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Indrani v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrani v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paramesh Nandhan D C Vs State of Karnataka by

Lokesh R Vs State by

Smt Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

S Venkatesh Vs T N Radha

Sri Manjunath M P Vs the State of Karnataka

Vijayendra Babu Vs C Hemanth Kumar