IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6412 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

1. SRI. KARTHIKEYAN SUNDARAM, SON OF SUNDARAM, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14, 3^RD CROSS, MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT, ADUGODI, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU – 560 030.

2. SMT. SAVITHRI SUNDARAM, WIFE OF SUNDARAM, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14, 3^RD CROSS, MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT, Digitally signed ADUGODI, BENGALURU CITY, by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY BENGALURU – 560 030.

Location: High Court of Karnataka

3. SRI SUNDARAM, SON OF LATE ANGUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14, 3^RD CROSS, MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT, ADUGODI, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU – 560 030.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI B.N.SURESH BABU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMENS P.S, BENGALURU – 560 006, REPRESENTED BY LEARNED HCGP. 2. SMT. JEEVITHA KARTHIKEYAN, WIFE OF S.KARTHIKEYAN (NOW DIVORCED), AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.46, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR BALAJI KALYANA MANTAPA, BSK 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI B.N.ANJAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.22590/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX A.C.J.M, BENGALURU, IN RESPECT OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION.

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-accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.22590/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code inter alia and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard Sri.B.N.Suresh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.B.N.Anjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

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

3.1. The petitioner No.1/accused No.1 gets married to the complainant on 07.10.2006. From the wedlock, the couple have a child. It transpires that the relationship between the two began to sour and reached an irretrievable state owing to which the complainant registers a complaint which becomes a crime in Crime No.44/2014. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code only and not the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. It transpires that the respondent No.2 then on

06.04.2017 files a petition for divorce in M.C.No.1845/2017. The filing of the charge sheet and the continuation of the proceedings is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that there is nothing against these petitioners that can become the offence under Section 498A of the IPC or otherwise. The complaint nor the charge sheet indicate any demand of dowry or cruelty meted out against the complainant in-furtherance of demand of dowry. Learned counsel would further contend that the wife started living separately from the husband long before the registration of the crime and therefore, the proceedings must not be obliterated.

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that the police after investigation have filed a charge sheet and it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial . A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would indicate that the offences are met and therefore, this Court must not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Learned HCGP would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the partie