Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/4037/2026 of RAMANJINEYULU Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 1 October 2026
CNR: KAHC010186462026 NC: 2026:KHC:54664 CRL.P No. 4037 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4037 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. RAMANJINEYULU, S/O UKKESALA NARAYANA AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4037 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
RAMANJINEYULU,
S/O UKKESALA NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O NO. 4/359,
FOREST LANE ADONI AMBABHAVANI PETA,
ADONI, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH-518301.
(AGE AND FATHER NAME AND
ADDRESS MENTIONED AS PER AADHAAR CARD)
2.
SHIVASAGAR
S/O U RAMANJINEYULU
AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/O NO. 4/359,
FOREST LANE ADONI AMBABHAVANI PETA,
ADONI, KURNOOL,
ANDHRA PRADESH-518301.
(AGE AND FATHER NAME
AND ADDRESS MENTIONED
AS PER AADHAAR CARD)
3.
BALAMANI
W/O U RAMANJINEYULU
AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O NO. 4/359, FOREST LANE
ADONI AMBABHAVANI PETA, ADONI,
KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH-518301.
AGE AND HUSBAND NAME AND ADDRESS
MENTIONED AS PER AADHAAR CARD)
HC-KAR
4.
GOVINDU
S/O SHRINIVAS DHULAM,
AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O PLOT NO.1, VINAYAK NAGAR,
MIDC ROAD, SOLAPUR SOUTH,
SOLAPUR DISTRICT MAHARASHTRA-413006.
(AGE AND FATHER NAME AND
ADDRESS MENTIONED AS PER AADHAAR CARD
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A K SREEHARSHA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH NORTH EAST WOMEN PS
BENGALURU CITY-560003.
REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU 560001.
2.
SMT. SHREE BHAVANI.S
W/O ASHOK KUMAR UKKISILA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
HOUSE NO-141, 2ND BLOCK
HMT LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPUR,
BENGALURU CITY-560097.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGHARISH G S, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI ABHILASH MISHRA, ADVOCATE
SRI KAPIL DIXIT, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS)
CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH
THE FIR IN CRIME NO.9/2026 IN NORTH EAST WOMEN P.S., (SAMPIGEHALLI SUB DIVISION) IN CRIME NO.9/2026 IN
NORTH EAST WOMEN P.S., (SAMPIGEHALLI SUB DIVISION)
AGAINST
THE
PETITIONER
FOR
THE
OFFENCE
P/US/
85,115(2),352,351(3) R/W SEC.3(5) OF BNS 2023 AND
HC-KAR
U/S.3,4 OF DP ACT 1961 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 41st ACJM COURT BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This petition is filed to quash FIR in Crime No.9/2026 registered before the North East Women Police Station For the offence punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No.1 is the father-in-law, petitioner No.2 is the brother-in-law and petitioner No.3 is the mother-in-law of respondent No.2.
HC-KAR
4. The marriage between the complainant and accused No.1 was solemnized in the year 2025 and respondent No.2 stayed with the accused No.1 only for a month and the parents were living separately in Andhra Pradesh, as such, the complaint could not have been filed against the petitioners.
5. It is the contention of the petitioners that the marital dispute between accused No.1 and respondent No.2/complainant is converted into a criminal case by falsely implicating all the family members. Thus, it is urged that the petition has to be allowed and the proceeding against the petitioners has to be quashed.
6. It is the further submission that the petitioners have records/documents to show that they resided separately.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that allegations in the complaint would indicate that the petitioners were also supporting the illegal act committed against the complainant. On 13.12.2025, the petitioners along with the husband/accused No.1 of the complainant trespassed
HC-KAR
into the parents' house of the complainant and they came with an intention to abuse the complainant's parents and as well as the complainant and accused No.1 forcibly snatched the cell phone and deleted all evidence against him. It is submitted that the accused No.1 pulled the complainant's mangal sutra and caused injury on her neck and also strangled the complainant using mangal sutra before pulling it out.
8. It is alleged that complainant had breathing difficulty and she became unconscious. It is also alleged that the complainant managed to escape with help of the tenants and it is also alleged that the complainant's mother's cell phone was snatched and she was prevented from calling the Police. It is also alleged that the petitioners assaulted the complainant's mother and slapped her.
9. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would also urge that the presence of the petitioners is very much evidenced in the videograph and the said evidence is available with respondent No.2.
HC-KAR
10. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.
11. The petitioners claim that the complainant never resided with the petitioners and she all along resided with the accused No.1 in a rented house and to support their claim they have produced the rent agreement.
12. Even according to the petitioners, the complainant stayed with accused No.1 for a month after the marriage and not beyond that and thereafter she left the company of the accused No.1.
13. It is also contended that the petitioners never visited the house of the complainant's parents. If that is the case, the matter has to be investigated by the Police and the Police have to find out whether the allegations are true or not.
14. At this juncture the petition cannot be quashed. The Court is not required to get into the merits of the allegation, the Court is only required to see whether the allegations warrant investigation.
HC-KAR
15. To substantiate the claim, the petitioners are at liberty to produce all the materials at their possession.
16. The complainant is also at liberty to produce the materials in support of their claim.
17. The Police shall consider the same in accordance with law and thereafter shall file appropriate report.
18. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
19. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any merits on the contentions raised by either of the parties. The contentions and rival contentions are to be properly investigated by the Police as advised in law.
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17