Manjegowda Aliyas Manju v. The State of Karnataka by

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 569 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

MANJEGOWDA ALIYAS MANJU S/O LATE CHIKKE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT P/A 91058, ERLANGEN HARTMANNSTR, 133, GERMANY COUNT,

PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT SASALU KOPPALU, KIKKERI POST, KR PETE, MANDYA TALUK, KARNATAKA -571 426 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LOKESH B.N, ADVOCATE (NOC OBTAINTED) SRI. ANKITH S REDDY, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TUMAKURU WOMEN POLICE STATION, TUMKUR -572 103 REPRESENTED BY THE SPP, STATE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AT BANGALORE 560 001

¶2USHANRANI N W/O MANJEGOWDA ALIYAS MANJU, D/O NAGARAJ.M PRESENTLY RESIDING AT GURUKULA SCHOOL ROAD,

by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

JAYANAGARA EAST TUMKURU, KARNATAKA 572 102 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESH P, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 - ABSENT)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.429/2023 OF CR.NO.58/2023 OF TUMAKURU WOMEN POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU (RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN) AND PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.354, 354D, 498-A, 504, 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF DP ACT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.429/2023, arising out of Crime No.58/2023 registered by Tumakuru Women Police, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354D, 498A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, presently pending on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru.

¶2The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police alleging that

on 18.08.2022 her marriage was solemnized with petitioner i.e., eight months prior to the date of lodging the complaint. At the time of marriage, the petitioner demanded dowry and gold ornaments from respondent No.2. Accordingly, the said demand was fulfilled by the parents of respondent No.2. After the marriage, respondent No.2 started to reside in the house of petitioner i.e. at the matrimonial home at Sasalu Koppalu Village, Mandya District. At that time, the petitioner started to harass respondent No.2 both physically and mentally by demanding 10 acres of land and Rs.20,00,000/- as additional dowry. After the marriage, the petitioner went to Germany leaving behind respondent No.2 in the matrimonial home. When he was residing at Germany, he insisted respondent No.2 for video calls. Thereby, after obtaining obscene photographs and videos, he used to threaten and abuse her to fulfill the dowry demand. Though a Panchayat was held on 08.02.2023, the petitioner thrown her out from the matrimonial home. Hence, left with no other option, she filed the complaint against the petitioner before respondent No.1-Police. Based on the said complaint, respondent No.1-Police, after investigating the case, laid charge sheet against the petitioner and eight others and

the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences by arraying this petitioner as accused No.1. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this petition.

¶3It is contended in the petition that a false complaint has been lodged by respondent No.2 and accept customary exchange of gold ornaments at the time of marriage, no other demand was made by the petitioner or fulfilled by the parents of respondent No.2. It is also stated that, accept omnibus allegations in the charge sheet, no such specific allegations are forthcoming against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 354, 354D, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. As such, the complaint is filed out of vengeance against the petitioner and others. Accordingly, it is prayed to allow the petition.

¶4The learned HCGP for respondent No.1 opposed the aforesaid prayer on the ground that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the charge sheet averments not only disclose serious allegations against the petitioner in respect of dowry demand but also after recording the obscene pictures and

videos of respondent No.2, petitioner being the husband used to threaten her to fulfill his demand of dowry. Further, the statement of material witnesses clearly reveal that the petitioner indulged in the act of harassment to respondent No.2. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration both on the submission and the documents made available before this Court.

¶6As could be gathered from records, the complaint averments clearly reveal that, at the time of marriage, the parents of respondent No.2 paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and 250 grams of gold as dowry to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner and his family members demanded 10 acres of land and a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from respondent No.2 as additional dowry. Moreover, there is serious allegation that the petitioner recorded the obscene pictures and videos of respondent No.2. On perusal of the statement of eyewitnesses to the incident i.e., CWs.4 to 7, it reveal that the petitioner was harassing respondent No.2 both physically and mentally and their statement also corroborates the complaint version.

Additionally, the father and siblings of respondent No.2 also gave their statement before the Police about the incident. In such circumstances, the allegations made in the complaint and the statement of eyewitness have to be tested in a detailed trial. Since the charge sheet is filed and marriage between respondent No.2 and the petitioner is admitted and it is also admitted that after the marriage they resided together for a considerable period. In such circumstances, proceedings cannot be quashed against the petitioner/accused at this stage. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, suffice to hold that the proceedings cannot be quashed against the petitioner/accused. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

¶7It is made clear that the observations made in this petition shall not come in the way while disposing the case before the Trial Court.

SD/-

(RAJESH RAI K)

JUDGE

HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28