Karnataka High Court
Jyothi vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306
CRL.P No. 201472 of 2025
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. 201472 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. JYOTHI
W/O ERANNA @ VEERANNA MAVALLI
AGE 52 YEARS,
OCC HOUSEHOLD
R/AT MAHAMANE BADAVANE,
DHARAWAD - 580003.
2. USHA W/O YELLANNA @ YELLAPPA MAVALLI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/AT MAHAMANE BADAVANE,
DHARAWAD - 580003.
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA 3. ASHA W/O ESHWAR SHIRAGUPPI
UDAGI
Location: HIGH AGE 47 YEARS,
COURT OF OCC HOUSEHOLD
KARNATAKA
R/AT MALAYA MAHADESHWAR LAYOUT VARUNA
TQ AND DIST.MYSORE - 570010
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ C. JAKA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KALABURAGI WOMEN POLICE STATION,
KALABURAGI DIST.KALABURAGI - 585102
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306
CRL.P No. 201472 of 2025
HC-KAR
NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
2. SMT. PREETI W/O SHASHIKIRAN KAMARADAGI
AGE 30 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE
R/AT JAMKHANDI, TQ.BAGALKOT
NOW R/AT BHARPET
CHITTAPUR DIST.KALABURAGI - 585211
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. SWATI M N, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS (NEW), U/S.482
OF CR.P.C.(OLD), PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.4481/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. JMFC
AT KALABURAGI WHICH IS REGISTERED ON THE BASIS OF
CASE REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.15/2025 AND AFTER
INVESTIGATION FILED CHARGE SHEET FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 85,115(2),352,351(2) R/W 190 OF BNS
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
KALABURAGI WOMEN POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS TO
SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306
CRL.P No. 201472 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 7 in C.C. No.4481/2025, arising out of Crime No.15/2025 of Women Police, Kalaburagi, pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352 and 351(2) r/w 190 of BNS, 2023.
2. The abridged facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 married one Shashikiran/accused No.1 on 21.12.2011 and thereafter, she started residing at her Matrimonial home. After one month from the date of marriage, her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law started to suspect her fidelity and as such, harassed her both physically and mentally. Subsequently, they also harassed her to bring additional dowry. According to her, on 18.03.2025, her husband and mother-in-law threw her out from the matrimonial home. Thereafter, she started to -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306 CRL.P No. 201472 of 2025 HC-KAR reside at her parental home. Hence, she lodged the complaint on 25.04.2025 before respondent No.1-Police against the petitioners and others.
3. On the strength of the said complaint, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.15/2025 dated 25.04.2025 against the petitioners and others for the aforementioned offences. After the registration of FIR, respondent No.1- Police, conducted investigation and laid charge-sheet against the petitioners and others by arraying the petitioners as accused Nos.5 to 7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred this petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that these petitioners being accused Nos.5 to 7, nowhere involved in -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306 CRL.P No. 201472 of 2025 HC-KAR the alleged offences as alleged by respondent No.2. According to him, these petitioners are separately residing along with their respective family. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the petition and pray to dismiss the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and documents made available on record.
8. On perusal of the complaint and charge sheet materials, respondent No.2 has categorically stated, after one month from the date of marriage, her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law i.e., accused Nos.1 to 3 have started suspecting her fidelity and harassed her. Later, the petitioners demanded additional dowry and -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306 CRL.P No. 201472 of 2025 HC-KAR harassed her both physically and mentally. Finally, on 18.03.2025, they threw out her from the matrimonial home. As far as these petitioners are concerned, no specific overt acts are forthcoming in the complaint or in the charge sheet and the witnesses have also not stated the specific overt act of these petitioners in the crime. Admittedly, these petitioners are in-laws aged about 52, 50 and 47 respectively.
9. 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. It is also settled position of law that if a person is made to face a criminal -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306 CRL.P No. 201472 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arise from a matrimonial dispute.
10. 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 -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306 CRL.P No. 201472 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.
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.-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306 CRL.P No. 201472 of 2025 HC-KAR 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."
11. In the instant case, a bare perusal of FIR and charge sheet materials 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 mentally harassed her with a demand for 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 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 respondent No.2.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306 CRL.P No. 201472 of 2025 HC-KAR The mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specific details would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings against any person.
12. 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.
13. In my considered view, continuation of criminal proceeding against these petitioners i.e., accused Nos.5 to 7 is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER a. The petition is allowed.
b. The proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 7 in
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306
CRL.P No. 201472 of 2025
HC-KAR
C.C.No.4481/2025 arising out of Crime
No.15/2025 registered by Women Police, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352 and 351(2) r/w Section 190 of BNS, 2023, presently pending on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT/BH