Allegations of Sexual Assault and Dowry Harassment Dismissed as Motivated by Strained Relations
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Sri. Udaykiran Vasireddi, accused of sexual assault and dowry harassment, citing the allegations as vexatious and motivated by personal vendetta amid matrimonial discord. Justice H.P. Sandesh delivered the judgment on 25th September 2026, addressing two criminal petitions, Crl.P.No.220/2018 and Crl.P.No.8868/2017, highlighting the misuse of legal provisions in matrimonial disputes.
The case involved allegations made by the estranged wife of Udaykiran Vasireddi, accusing him of sexual assault on their minor daughter and dowry harassment. The court observed that the allegations lacked credible evidence and were driven by personal vengeance, unsupported by any documentary proof of molestation, including medical reports.
In Crl.P.No.220/2018, the court quashed proceedings against Udaykiran under Sections 354A(1) of IPC and Sections 7, 11(ii) of the POCSO Act, finding no substantial evidence to support the claims of sexual assault. The court noted that the allegations surfaced only after matrimonial disputes escalated, and there was a delay in filing the complaint, further raising doubts about its authenticity.
Similarly, in Crl.P.No.8868/2017, the court quashed proceedings against Udaykiran’s relatives under Sections 498A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found the allegations against the relatives as omnibus and without specific demands for dowry or cruelty, deeming them as part of the strained matrimonial relations. However, the petition was dismissed for accused No. 1, Udaykiran, who the court stated must face trial for the allegations specifically made against him.
Justice Sandesh emphasized the rising trend of using children to settle personal scores in matrimonial disputes, referring to it as "malicious parent syndrome." The court cited several precedents, including Ishwar Chand Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, highlighting the need for caution in dealing with frivolous matrimonial allegations.
The judgment underscores the necessity for the judiciary to be vigilant in discerning genuine cases from those motivated by personal vendetta, especially in the sensitive realm of matrimonial disputes.
Bottom Line :
Quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C upheld where allegations of sexual assault and dowry harassment were found to be vexatious and motivated by strained matrimonial relations.
Statutory provision(s): Section 482 Cr.P.C, Section 354A(1) IPC, Sections 7 and 11(ii) POCSO Act, Sections 498A, 323, 506, 34 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
Udaykiran Vasireddi v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc id # 2986219
