IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12258 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

1. SHIVALEELA B. KODAD W/O BASAVARAJA M.KODAD, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

2. BASAVARAJA M. KODAD S/O LATE MAHANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT KASHIPURA MAIN ROAD, SIDDARAMA EXTENSION, 2^ND CROSS, ”SAISTHUTHI NILAYA”, VINOBHA NAGARA, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204.

KARISHETTY …PETITIONERS Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHITRADURGA WOMENS POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

2. SMT. LAKSHMI B.T., W/O SHARATH B.K., CURRENTLY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT AMOGHA LAYOUT, BANK COLONY, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;

SRI PAVAN KUMAR N., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF COGNIZANCE DATED 13.10.2024 ONE PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE I A.S.C.J AND J.M.F.C CHITRADURGA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 506, 34, 498A, 504, 323 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET ONE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1/POLICE IN C.C.NO.971/2023 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A1.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.971 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 506, 34, 498A, 504, 323 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard Sri T Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri B N Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Pavan Kumar N, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

Petitioners are Mother-in-law and Father-in-law of the 2^nd respondent/complainant. The 2^nd respondent/complainant and the accused No.1 get married on 27-05-2020. It transpires that the relationship between the two flounders. On floundering of the relationship, several proceedings are instituted by the wife against the husband and the in-laws or the husband against the wife, as the case would be. The issue in the lis pertains to setting the criminal law into motion against the Mother-in-law and Father-in-law, the accused Nos.3 and 2 respectively. The 2^nd respondent registers a complaint on 06-06-2023 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 498A, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The said complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.62 of 2023. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet and the proceeding is registered as C.C. No. 971 of 2023. Registration of the C.C. is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel Sri Sunil S Rao appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that a perusal of the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet, as the case would be, would not indicate any of the ingredients that are necessary to drive home the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. Vague and omnibus statements are made in the complaint and also in the summary of the charge sheet by the complainant/2^nd respondent. Therefore, he would submit that the proceedings be quashed as against accused Nos.2 and 3.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/complainant submits that there are indeed complaints against the accused nos.2 and 3, on the demand of dowry. The complaint is narrated in great detail about the overt act committed by the petitioners intermittently upon the complainant, but would admit that they were not residing with the family and did reside separately. But would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. The Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor also would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the compl