Karnataka High Court
Gurunath vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741
CRL.P No. 200015 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200015 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. GURUNATH S/O SANGAPPA GADAGE
AGE: 39 YEARS
OCC: ENGINEERS
R/O BAKKACHOWDI VILLAGE
NOW AT KOLARA (K) VILLAGE
BIDAR, DIST:BIDAR-585401
2. VIMALABAI W/O SANGAPPA GADAGE
AGE: 58 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O BAKKACHOWDI VILLAGE
NOW AT KOLARA (K) VILLAGE
Digitally signed by BIDAR, DIST:BIDAR-585401
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
Location: HIGH 3. SANGAPPA S/O GUNDAPPA GADAGE
COURT OF AGE: 62 YEARS
KARNATAKA
OCC: FARMER
R/O BAKKACHOWDI VILLAGE
NOW AT KOLARA (K) VILLAGE
BIDAR, DIST: BIDAR-585401
4. RENUKA W/O ANILAKUMAR
AGE: 41 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O YARABAG VILLAGE NOW AT
TQ: BASAWAKALYAN
DIST: BIDAR-585401
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741
CRL.P No. 200015 of 2026
HC-KAR
5. ANILAKUMAR S/O KARBASAPPA BHALKEKAR
AGE: 45 YEARS
OCC: EMPLOYED IN PRIVATE FIRM
R/O YARABAG VILLAGE, NOW AT HUMNABAD
DIST: BIDAR-585401
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANJAY A PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BIDAR WOMEN POLICE STATION
BIDAR SUB-DIVISION CIRCLE
DIST: BIDAR-585401
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI
2. VIJAYALAXMI W/O GURUNATH @ GURUPRASAD
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O BAKKACHOWDI VILLAGE
NOW AT KOLARA (K) VILLAGE, BIDAR
DIST: BIDAR-585401
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI RAVI K. ANOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.
(OLD), U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.35/2025 ON THE FILE OF I
ADDL. JMFC COURT, BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR, AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SECS. 498(A), 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC
AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT AS PER CHARGE SHEET
(ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.64/2024 REGISTERED BY BIDAR
WOMEN POLICE STATION, DISTRICT BIDAR/1st RESPONDENT
HEREIN.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741
CRL.P No. 200015 of 2026
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 5 in C.C.No.35/2025, arising out of Crime No.64/2024, registered by Women Police Station, Bidar, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for brevity, 'the IPC'] and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [for brevity, 'the D.P. Act'], pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar.
2. The abridged facts of the case are, respondent No.2 filed a complaint before respondent No.1-Police on 29.08.2024 alleging that she married one Gurunath i.e., accused No.1/petitioner No.1 on 11.02.2019. At the time of marriage, her parents had given 10 tolas of gold and household articles as a dowry. After the marriage, she started residing at her matrimonial home along with her -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741 CRL.P No. 200015 of 2026 HC-KAR husband, mother-in-law/petitioner No.2, father-in- law/petitioner No.3 and others. She was residing cordially with her husband and in-laws for a period of 5 to 6 months. Thereafter, her husband and in-laws started harassing her both physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- to construct a house. Though respondent No.2 pleaded her inability, they abused and assaulted her. Though a panchayat was convened to that effect, the petitioners continued their harassment. Finally, they threw her out of the house one and half year prior to lodging the compliant.
3. It is further alleged that on 24.05.2024 at about 7:00 p.m. she attended the housewarming ceremony of her matrimonial home along with her family members. At that time, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 abused her and assaulted her. Hence, she lodged the complaint. On the strength of said complaint, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.64/2024 dated 29.08.2024 against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences. Subsequently, respondent -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741 CRL.P No. 200015 of 2026 HC-KAR No.1-Police laid charge sheet against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences. Accordingly, the 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, there is an inordinate delay of more than 3 months in lodging the complaint. According to respondent No.2, the alleged incident was caused on 24.05.2024, however, she lodged a complaint on 29.08.2024. He also contended that the provisions of D.P. Act do not attract against the petitioners, since they have not demanded any money in the form of dowry or received the same either at the time of marriage or thereafter. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741 CRL.P No. 200015 of 2026 HC-KAR
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader jointly submit that, after the marriage of respondent No.2, she was residing along with petitioner Nos.1 to 3. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 used to visit the house of respondent No.2's matrimonial home and instigated petitioner Nos.1 to 3 to harass her. These aspects of the matter were stated by the witnesses. They further submit that, since the investigation is now completed and charge sheet has been laid against the petitioners, the proceedings cannot be quashed against them. Accordingly, they 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 the documents made available on record.
8. As could be gathered from complaint averments, after the marriage, respondent No.2 started to reside with petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 i.e., -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741 CRL.P No. 200015 of 2026 HC-KAR her husband and in-laws in the matrimonial home. During that time, they harassed her both physically and mentally for additional dowry. According to her, they assaulted her several times. However, petitioner No.4, being sister-in- law of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.5, being the husband of petitioner No.4, they both are residing at Basavakalyana, Bidar. Even otherwise, no such specific allegation against them is forthcoming either in the complaint or in the charge sheet, except some vague and omnibus allegations. In such circumstance, I am of the considered view that there are prima facie materials forthcoming against petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to
3. However, the allegation against petitioner Nos.4 and 5/accused Nos.4 and 5 are vague and omnibus.
9. 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 -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741 CRL.P No. 200015 of 2026 HC-KAR 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 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:
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741 CRL.P No. 200015 of 2026 HC-KAR "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.
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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741 CRL.P No. 200015 of 2026 HC-KAR 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. Applying the above findings in the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the present case, I am of the considered view that the continuation of proceedings against petitioner Nos.4 and 5/accused Nos.4 and 5 is 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 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 is dismissed and the proceedings against them shall continue.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741 CRL.P No. 200015 of 2026 HC-KAR iii. The petition in respect of petitioner Nos.4 and 5/accused Nos.4 and 5 is allowed. iv. The proceedings against petitioner Nos.4 and 5/accused Nos.4 and 5 in C.C.No.35/2025, arising out of Crime No.64/2024, registered by Women Police Station, Bidar, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE SWK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 CT-BH