Karnataka High Court
Ameet And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 1 February, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:729
CRL.P No. 201100 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201100 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. AMEET S/O BHIMAPPA BELLUBBI,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: EXCISE INSPECTOR, KALAGHATGI PS.,
R/O. HUBLI ROAD, KALAGHATGI,
TQ. KALAGHATGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204.
2. BHIMAPPA S/O YAMANAPPA BELLUBBI,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER.
3. SMT. SHAILA W/O BHIMAPPA BELLUBBI,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
Digitally signed by 4. AJIT S/O BHIMAPPA BELLUBBI,
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVANT,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA PETITIONERS NO 2 TO 4 ARE
R/O H. NO. 56 NAVRASPUR COLONY,
OPPOSITE DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX,
BAGALKOT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586109.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE SHO., VIJAYAPURA WOMEN P S.,
REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:729
CRL.P No. 201100 of 2023
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI-585102.
2. SMT. PRIYANKA W/O AMEET BELLUBBI,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. TORAVI VILLAGE, TQ. TIKOTA,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA,
PRESENTLY R/O. GHEWARCHAND COLONY,
ATHANI ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R1
SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND THEREBY THE ORDER
OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE OF PROCESS DATED
03.07.2023 PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.1636/2023
(ARISING OUT OF VIJAYAPURA WOMEN PS. CRIME
NO.189/2022) BY THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-III,
COURT, VIJAYAPURA TO FACE TRIAL FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 109, 323, 504, 506 R/W.
SECTION 34 OF IPC ALONG WITH SECTION 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE FILING OF THE CHARGESHEET AGAINST
THE PETITIONER PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:729
CRL.P No. 201100 of 2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. The accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash the entire
proceedings in C.C.No.1636/2023 pending before the IV
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Vijayapur, arising out of
Crime No.189/2022 registered by the Vijayapur Women Police
Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 109,
323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that,
the accused No.1 is the husband and accused Nos.2 to 4 are
the parents and younger brother of accused No.1. The accused
No.1 is a Government servant serving at Dharwad district and
accused No.4 is also a Government servant serving at
Vijayapura. After the marriage, accused No.1 and respondent
No.2 were residing at Dharwad. Accused Nos.2 to 4 are all
residents of Vijayapura. By making false and baseless
NC: 2025:KHC-K:729
allegations, only for the reason that they are the close relatives
of the accused No.1, they have been falsely implicated in the
present case.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have opposed the
petition. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that,
there are allegations even as against accused Nos.2 to 4 which
would attract the charge-sheeted offences. Accordingly, he
prays to dismiss the petition.
5. A perusal of the material on record would go to
show that, the marriage of accused No.1/petitioner No.1 with
respondent No.2 was performed on 07.05.2017. The accused
No.1 is said to be a Government servant working at Dharwad
as an Excise Inspector. The accused Nos.2 and 3 are the
parents of accused No.1 and accused No.4. Accused No.4 who
is the younger brother of the accused No.1, is also said to be a
Government servant working as Police Sub-Inspector in
Vijayapur district. The material on record would go to show
that, accused No.1 and his wife i.e. respondent No.2 herein
were residing in Dharwad after marriage, whereas, the accused
NC: 2025:KHC-K:729
Nos.2 to 4 are all residing in Vijayapura. A perusal of the
allegations made in the first information and also in the charge-
sheet would go to show that, general and omnibus allegations
are made against accused Nos.2 to 4. There are no specific
allegations against the said accused, which would attract the
charge-sheeted offence as against them.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PREETI
GUPTA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND
ANOTHER1 has held as follows:
"32. It is matter of common knowledge that
unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing
in our country. All the courts of our country including
this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This
clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family
life of a large number of people of the society.
33. The learned members of the Bar have
enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure
that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or
demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions
of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal
complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on
their advice or with their concurrence. The learned
members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession
must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every
(2019)4 SCC 615
NC: 2025:KHC-K:729
complaint under section 498-A as a basic human
problem and must make serious endeavour to help the
parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that
human problem. They must discharge their duties to the
best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace
and tranquility of the society remains intact. The
members of the Bar should also ensure that one
complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the
complaint the implications and consequences are not
properly visualized by the complainant that such
complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony
and pain to the complainant, accused and his close
relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out
the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent.
To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of
these complaints. The tendency of implicating the
husband and all his immediate relations is also not
uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the
criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth.
The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in
dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic
realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial
cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close
relations who had been living in different cities and never
visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant
resided would have an entirely different complexion. The
NC: 2025:KHC-K:729
allegations of the complainant are required to be
scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of
TARBEZ KHAN ALIAS GUDDU & OTHERS VS STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER2 and in the case of
SEENIVASAN VS THE STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE3,
has observed that in the absence of specific allegations, which
would attract the offences, an attempt to implicate the near
relatives of the husband cannot be permitted.
8. This Court in the case of ASMA KHANUM @ NOOR
ASMA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER4
has held that when the material on record would go to show
that the petitioners, who are close relatives of husband, are
married and residing separately and when the complaint lacks
specific allegations so as to implicate the petitioners for the
offences alleged against them, such criminal prosecution shall
not be allowed to continue.
9. In the background of the aforesaid Judgments, if
the material on record is scrutinized, I am of the opinion that,
(2019)4 SCC 615
(2019)8 SCC 642
2020(6) KAR.L.J.90
NC: 2025:KHC-K:729
the prayer made by the accused Nos.2 to 4 in this petition
needs to be granted and the petition is liable to be rejected,
insofar as it relates to accused No.1, who is the husband of
respondent No.2. Accordingly, the following order:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal petition is partly allowed;
(ii) This criminal petition is dismissed as
against accused No.1 and is allowed insofar as
accused Nos.2, 3 and 4, who are the relatives of the
accused No.1;
(iii) The criminal proceedings as against
accused Nos.2 to 4 is quashed and the trial Court
shall proceed further, as against accused No.1, in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
SVH
CT:PK
