Karnataka High Court
Bharath And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 10 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310
CRL.P No. 200507 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200507 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. BHARATH
S/O MALLIKARJUN BUDIHALA
AGE 33 YEARS,
OCC BUSINESS,
R/O GYANG BHAVADI, BASAVANAGAR,
DIST VIJAYAPURA
2. MALLIKARJUN @ MALLAPPA
S/O IRAPPA BUDHIHAL
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA AGE 64 YEARS,
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI OCC BUSINESS,
Location: HIGH R/O GYANG BHAVADI, BASAVANAGAR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DIST VIJAYAPURA
3. NANDA W/O MALLIKARJUN BUDHIHAL
AGE 56 YEARS,
OCC H H WORK,
R/O GYANG BHAVADI, BASAVANAGAR,
DIST VIJAYAPURA
4. BAGYASHRI D/O MALLIKARJUN BUDIHAL
W/O SAGAR DHOTRI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310
CRL.P No. 200507 of 2023
HC-KAR
AGE 35 YEARS,
OCC H H WORK,
R/O BENGALURU
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND V PATTANASHETTI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ADDL SPP KALABURAGI,
BENCH-585107
(THROUGH PSI., WOMAN PS., VIJAYAPURA
DIST VIJAYAPURA)
2. ROOPA W/O BHARAT BUDIHAL
AGE. 28 YEARS,
OCC HOUSEWIFE,
R/O MULASAVALAGI, TQ DEVARHIPPARGI,
DIST VIJAYAPURA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHBUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.
528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND
COMPLAINT REGISTERED IN VIJAYAPURA WOMEN PS CRIME
NO.42/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS.498(A),
323, 504 AND 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.4 OF THE D.P
ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. CIVIL AND JMFC (JR.
DN) COURT VIJAYAPURA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310
CRL.P No. 200507 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the petition with liberty to renew his prayer if marriage is dissolved between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 by decree of divorce.
2. In view of the submission, petition is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 are concerned.
As regards petitioner no.4/accused no.4, the matter is taken up for consideration as under:
3. This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to quash the FIR, complaint and the proceedings against petitioner No.4/accused No.4 registered in Crime No.42/2023 dated 07.03.2023 by the Women Police, Vijayapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310 CRL.P No. 200507 of 2023 HC-KAR 'D.P. Act'), pending on the file of IV-Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC (Jr.Dn.), Vijayapura.
4. The factual matrix of the case is, respondent No.2 married Bharat-accused No.1 on 14.02.2021. At the time of marriage, the parents of respondent No.2 had given 5 tolas of gold, silver and Rs.1,00,000/- cash to accused No.1 as dowry. After the marriage, respondent No.2 started to reside at her matrimonial home along with accused Nos.1 to 3. Though they treated her cordially for sometime, thereafter, they started to harass her both physically and mentally to bring additional dowry and also accused No.1 and others were used to assault and abuse her by insulting her. Though the family members made an attempt to convey panchayat, accused Nos.1 to 3 and petitioner No.4 are not ready to join the panchayat and they continued their harassment. Finally, they threw her out from the matrimonial home. As such, she started to reside in her parental house.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310 CRL.P No. 200507 of 2023 HC-KAR
5. Things stood thus, on 19.02.2021 at about 11:00 a.m., accused Nos.1 to 3 and petitioner No.4 visited the parental house of respondent No.2 and picked up a quarrel with her and demanded dowry and they also assaulted her and abused her parents by foisting life threat. Thereafter, her husband or in-laws did not take her back to the matrimonial home. As such, she lodged the complaint on 07.03.2023, which registered in Crime No.42/2023 for the aforementioned offences. Being aggrieved by the registration of FIR, the petitioner/accused No.4 approached this Court for quashing the same.
6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner No.4 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner No.4 vehemently contended that this petitioner is the sister-in-law of respondent No.2 and she is married to one Sagar Dhotri and they are residing at Bengaluru and no way connected -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310 CRL.P No. 200507 of 2023 HC-KAR to the alleged incident. Despite, out of vengeance, respondent No.2 implicated her in the alleged crime. As such, he prays to allow the petition.
8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the prayer on the ground that the investigation is still under progress, therefore, FIR cannot be quashed. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.
9. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and documents available on record.
10. As could be gathered from the complaint and other records, though omnibus allegations made against petitioner No.4 along with accused Nos.1 to 3, the records disclose that petitioner No.4, being the sister-in-law of respondent No.2, married and residing at Bengaluru. In such circumstances, the omnibus allegations made against her cannot be taken into consideration on its face value. -7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310 CRL.P No. 200507 of 2023 HC-KAR
11. In such circumstance, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Subba Rao vs. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and Others reported in 2024 INSC 960, at paragraph No.6 held that the Court should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped-in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instance of their involvement in the crime are made out.
12. It is also settled position of law that, if a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. The Courts pose a duty to subject the allegation levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, whether there is any gain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310 CRL.P No. 200507 of 2023 HC-KAR criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arise from a matrimonial dispute.
13. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayan vs. State of Telangana reported in 2025 3 SCC 735, held in para Nos.25 and 28 as under:
"25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310 CRL.P No. 200507 of 2023 HC-KAR
28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them."
14. In the instant case, a bare perusal of FIR clearly shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Apart from claiming that the husband i.e., accused No.1 and his family members physically and mentally harassed her for additional dowry, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has not mentioned the time, date, place or a manner in which
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310 CRL.P No. 200507 of 2023 HC-KAR the alleged harassment occurred or the details of the nature of demand or its particulars. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. The term "cruelty" cannot be established without specific instance. The same weakens the case of the prosecution and casts serious doubt on the probability of the version of the complainant. The mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specific details would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings against any person.
15. It is settled position of law that Courts have to be careful and cautious in dealing with complaint and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial disputes, where the allegations have to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of Court.
16. In my considered view, continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioner No.4/accused No.4 is abuse
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310 CRL.P No. 200507 of 2023 HC-KAR of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The Criminal Petition in respect of petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 is dismissed as withdrawn and the proceedings against them shall continue.
ii. The Criminal Petition in respect of petitioner No.4/accused No.4 is allowed.
iii. The proceedings against petitioner No.4/accused No.4 in Crime No.42/2023 dated 07.03.2023, registered by Women Police, Vijayapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending on the file of IV-Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC (Jr.Dn.), Vijayapura, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3;CT-BH