[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Dinesh Rathod vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1424
CRL.P No. 201100 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201100 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. DINESH RATHOD
S/O GANAPATI NAYAK RATHOD
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND COOLIE,
R/O H.NO.292, GUTTI TANDA,
KALAMAMBARAGI, TQ: KAMALAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI-585313
2. GANAPATI S/O AMBRU NAYAK RATHOD
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCC: RETD. GOVT. SERVANT,
Digitally signed by R/O H.NO.292, GUTTI TANDA, KALAMAMBARAGI,
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA TQ: KAMALAPUR,
UDAGI
DIST: KALABURAGI-585313
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. ANUSUBAI
W/O GANAPATI NAYAK RATHOD
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK,
R/O H.NO.292, GUTTI TANDA,
KALAMAMBARAGI, TQ: KAMALAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI-585313
4. MAHESH S/O GANAPATI NAYAK RATHOD
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: SMART A-I, BENGALURU
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1424
CRL.P No. 201100 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/O H.NO.292, GUTTI TANDA,
KALAMAMBARAGI, TQ: KAMALAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI-585313
5. AMBRISH
S/O GANAPATI NAYAK RATHOD
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: DOCTOR, R/O H.NO.292,
GUTTI TANDA, KALAMAMBARAGI,
TQ: KAMALAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI-585318
6. SANJEEVKUMAR
S/O DEVARAM RATHOD
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER,
R/O GUTTI TANDA, KALAMAMBARAGI,
TQ: KAMALAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI-585313
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B K HIREMATH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KAMALAPUR POLICE STATION,
THROUGH ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107
2. POOJA W/O DIENSH RATHOD
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: H.H.WORK,
R/O DONGARGAOR GUTTI TANDA,
TQ: KAMALAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI-585313
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA B YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1424
CRL.P No. 201100 of 2025
HC-KAR
SMT. SHRIDEVI B. ALBA FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD) U/SEC
528 OF BNSS, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
NO.1 TO 6/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED
FIR AND COMPLAINT LODGED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 BEFORE
RESPONDENT NO.1 IN THEIR CRIME NO.0082/2025, IN FIR
NO.1751/2025 DATED 30.06.2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I
ADDL. JMFC Court KALABURAGI FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
U/SEC.85, 352, 351(1), 190 OF BNSS ACT 2023 AGAINST THE
PETITIONER NO.1 TO 6/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6 OF KAMALAPUR
POLICE STATION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime
No.82/2025, registered by Kamalapur Police, for the offences
punishable under Sections 85, 352 and 351(1) r/w Section 190
of BNS, 2023, pending on the file of I Addl. JMFC, Kalaburagi.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that, accused
No.1-Dinesh Rathod is the husband of respondent No.2-Pooja
and their marriage was solemnized on 21.02.2021. Out of the
wedlock, they begotten one female child and after the
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1424
CRL.P No. 201100 of 2025
HC-KAR
marriage, she was looked after cordially for one year by
accused No.1-her husband, accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e., father-in-
law and mother-in-law respectively. Thereafter, her husband
met with a road accident and was recovered. Accused Nos.1 to
3 along with accused Nos.4 and 5 i.e., brothers-in-law of
respondent No.2 started to harass her stating that she was the
reason for the accident met by accused No.1. Due to the
continuous harassment meted out by the petitioners, she left
the matrimonial home and started to reside in her parental
home.
3. In the year 2024, the Panchayath was convened
between respondent No.2 and the petitioners and the
petitioners assured that they would look after respondent No.2
cordially. As such, she once again joined the matrimonial home
and at that time, accused No.1 had taken 4 ½ tolas of gold
from her on the pretext of some work and they looked after
respondent No.2 cordially for sometime, however, once again
they continued to harass her. Later, on 03.06.2025 at 12:30
p.m., accused Nos.1 to 5 along with accused No.6-Sanjeev
Kumar, who is the relative of accused Nos.1 to 5, abused her in
filthy language stating that she is not fit to reside with them
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1424
CRL.P No. 201100 of 2025
HC-KAR
and thrown her out of the house by foisting life threat to her.
Hence, respondent No.2 lodged the complaint before
respondent No.1-Police on 30.06.2025 in Crime No.82/2025 for
the aforementioned offences against the petitioners. Aggrieved
by the same, the petitioners preferred this petition seeking to
quash the proceedings.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioners contended that at no point of time,
these petitioners harassed respondent No.2 either physically or
mentally, as alleged by her. According to learned counsel,
petitioner No.1 filed a petition Under Section 9 of Hindu
Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right, the same is
pending in M.C.196/2025, despite respondent No.2 filed this
false complaint without joining petitioner No.1. He also
contended that, petitioner Nos.4, 5 and 6 are residing
separately and not shared common roof of matrimonial home of
respondent No.2. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1424
CRL.P No. 201100 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. Per contra, learned HCGP contended that this
petition is at premature stage, as of now, except the complaint
and FIR averments, no other materials are collected by the
Investigation Officer. Further, the complaint averments clearly
disclose the cognizable offences against the petitioners. In such
circumstance, he prays to dismiss the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration both on the
submissions made by the learned counsel for respective parties
and the documents available on record.
8. As could be gathered from the complaint
averments, the marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner
No.1 was solemnized on 21.02.2021 and she resided along with
him cordially for a period of 1 year and thereafter, her husband
and her in-laws started to harass her both physically and
mentally. Admittedly, petitioner Nos.1 to 5 i.e., accused Nos.1
to 5 are residing in the shared house and there are prima facie
allegations forthcoming against them in the complaint
averments. Now, that investigation is under progress, the
respondent No.1-Police yet to file charge sheet, the FIR cannot
be quashed against accused Nos.1 to 5 when prima facie case
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1424
CRL.P No. 201100 of 2025
HC-KAR
made out against them in the complaint. However, accused
No.6 residing separately from the matrimonial home of
respondent No.2 and the allegation against him in the
complaint is, whenever he used to visit the matrimonial home
of respondent No.2, he instigated accused Nos.1 to 5 to harass
her.
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 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
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1424
CRL.P No. 201100 of 2025
HC-KAR
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 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
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1424
CRL.P No. 201100 of 2025
HC-KAR
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. 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. 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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1424
CRL.P No. 201100 of 2025
HC-KAR
scrutinized with great care and circumspection in order to
prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of Court.
12. In my considered view, continuation of criminal
proceeding against petitioner No.6/accused No.6 is abuse of
process of Court. However, the proceedings against petitioner
Nos.1 to 5/accused Nos.1 to 5 cannot be quashed at this stage
for the reason that they are residing in the shared roof of
matrimonial house of respondent No.2 as stated supra.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed in part.
ii. The petition in respect of petitioner Nos.1 to 5/accused Nos.1 to 5 is hereby dismissed and the proceedings against them shall continue.
iii. The petition in respect of petitioner No.6/accused No.6 is allowed.
iv. The proceedings in respect of petitioner No.6/accused No.6 in Crime No.82/2025, registered by Kamalapur Police, for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 352 and 351(1) r/w Section 190 of BNS,
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1424 CRL.P No. 201100 of 2025 HC-KAR 2023, pending on the file of I Addl. JMFC, Kalaburagi, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT-BH