Karnataka High Court
Vijayakumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578
CRL.P No. 201122 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201122 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. VIJAYKUMAR S/O SIDDESHWAR BHANGARAGI
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCCU: GOVT SERVANT
R/O MAINDARAGI
TQ: AKKALKOT, DISTRICT SOLAPUR
NOW AT PRESENT DISTRICT
SINDHUDURGA, MAHARASHTRA-416812.
2. VIRESH
S/O SIDDESHWAR BHANGARAGI
AGE: 35 EYARS,
OCCU: PRIVATE WORK
Digitally signed by
3. NIRMALA W/O SIDDESHWAR BHANGARAGI
SHIVALEELA AGE: 55 YEARS,
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI OCCU: HOUSE WIFE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. SANGEETA W/O VIRESH BHANGARAGI
KARNATAKA
AGE: 33 YEARS
OCCU: HOUSE WIFE
PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 4 ARE
RESIDENTS OF MAINDARAGI
TALUKA AKKALKOT
DISTRICT SOLAPUR
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA-413217.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. LAKSHMI G. E., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578
CRL.P No. 201122 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH WOMEN POLICE STATION
VIJAYAPUR, TALUK VIJAYAPUR,
DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR,
REPRESENTED BY
THE ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585103
2. SMT. KEERTI
W/O VIJAYAKUMAR BHANGARAGI
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE WORK, R/O K.C.NAGAR
NEAR DCC BANK, VIJAYAPURA
TQ: VIJAYAPURA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA
KARNATAKA-586103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI R. S. LAGALI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.
(OLD), U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
PETITION AND QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C
NO.918 OF 2025 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.201 OF 2023
REGISTERED AT VIJAYAPURA WOMEN POLICE STATION, FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 323,
325, 504 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN
PANEL CODE, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT VIJAYAPURA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578
CRL.P No. 201122 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL 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 4 in C.C.No.918/2025, arising out of Crime No.201/2023, registered by Women Police Station, Vijayapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 325, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity "IPC"), pending on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayaypur.
2. The abridged facts of the case are, complainant/respondent No.2 married petitioner No.1/accused No.1 on 26.04.2021. Thereafter, she started to reside in the matrimonial home along with her husband and petitioners. The petitioners cordially lived with her for some time. Thereafter, they started to quarrel with respondent No.2 on the premise that she does not know cooking and also she is not good looking. However, by -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578 CRL.P No. 201122 of 2025 HC-KAR tolerating all the harassment meted out by the petitioners, she continued to lead her marital life at her matrimonial home for a period of 10 months. Thereafter, she left the matrimonial home and started residing at her parental house. Later, she initiated the proceedings against her husband for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. When the said case was posted on 15.12.2023, on that day, she and her husband-petitioner No.1 were present before the Court. After hearing of the said case, petitioner No.1 insisted her for divorce. When she refused, he assaulted her. It is also alleged that her brother-in-law i.e., petitioner No.2 was present at that time. Thereafter, she took first aid in the Hospital and lodged the complaint before respondent No.1-Police on 18.12.2023.
3. On the strength of the said complaint, respondent No.1-Police registered the case in Crime No.201/2023 for the aforementioned offences. Subsequently, respondent No.1-Police investigated the case and laid charge sheet against these petitioners for -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578 CRL.P No. 201122 of 2025 HC-KAR the aforementioned offences. Accordingly, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred this petition.
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, the petitioners never harassed respondent No.2 physically or mentally and she voluntarily left the matrimonial home. According to her, on perusal of the complaint averments, there is no such specific averment that the petitioners harassed her for additional dowry. Accordingly, she prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer. According to him, now charge sheet has been laid against the petitioners and as per the complaint averments and statement of witnesses, -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578 CRL.P No. 201122 of 2025 HC-KAR all these petitioners have harassed respondent No.2 both physically and mentally. In such circumstances, he prays to dismiss the petition.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the prayer and prays to dismiss the petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the documents made available on record.
9. On perusal of the complaint averments, it is stated that, after the marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner No.1, she resided cordially for few days in the matrimonial home. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 started harassing her for the reason that she is not good looking and she does not know cooking. However, she resided in the matrimonial home for a period of 10 months. Thereafter she voluntarily left the matrimonial home and started residing at her parental house. -7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578 CRL.P No. 201122 of 2025 HC-KAR
10. In the subsequent incident dated 15.12.2023 it is stated that her husband-accused No.1 picked up quarrel with her in the Court premises and assaulted her. Though she mentioned the presence of accused No.2/petitioner No.2 in the said incident, except some omnibus allegations, there are no such specific or prima facie allegations made against him. Presently, petitioner No.1 has filed a divorce petition against respondent No.2 and in-turn respondent No.2 has filed a maintenance case against him. Accused No.3 being the mother-in-law of respondent No.2 residing along with accused No.1, also allegedly instigated accused No.1 to harass respondent No.2. Such being the position, in my considered view, there are prima facie materials forthcoming against petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and his mother petitioner No.3/accused No.3.
11. Petitioner No.2 being the brother-in-law and his wife-petitioner No.4 are residing separately and except some vague and omnibus allegations against them, no -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578 CRL.P No. 201122 of 2025 HC-KAR such specific overt act is attributed against them either in the complaint or in the charge sheet.
12. In such circumstances, 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 thorough scrutiny to find out, whether there is any gain of truth in the allegations or whether -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578 CRL.P No. 201122 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.
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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578 CRL.P No. 201122 of 2025 HC-KAR 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. 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 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578 CRL.P No. 201122 of 2025 HC-KAR
14. Applying the above findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgments to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that the proceedings against petitioner Nos.1 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 3 shall continue. However, the proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 and 4/accused Nos.2 and 4 is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The petition is allowed in part.
ii. The petition in respect of petitioner Nos.1 and 3 is dismissed.
iii. The petition in respect of petitioner Nos.2 and 4 is allowed.
iv. The proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 and 4/accused Nos.2 and 4 in C.C. No.918/2025, arising out of Crime No.201/2023, registered by Women Police Station, Vijayapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 325, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, pending
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578 CRL.P No. 201122 of 2025 HC-KAR on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayaypur, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE SWK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT-BH