Karnataka High Court

Namdev And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 3 February, 2025

Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

                                             -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC-K:764
                                                    CRL.P No. 200926 of 2024




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                         DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                           BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY


                           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200926 OF 2024
                                   (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   NAMDEV S/O KESHAV JADHAV,
                        AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O. KESHAV NAYAK TANDA AURAD(B),
                        TQ. AURAD, DIST. BIDAR-585326.

                   2.   ANASHUBAI W/O NAMDEV JADHAV,
                        AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O. KESHAV NAYAK TANDA, AURAD(B),
                        TQ. AURAD, DIST. BIDAR-585326.

                   3.   SHIVARAJ @ SHIVAJI S/O NAMDEV JADHAV,
Digitally signed        AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
by SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH                R/O. KESHAV NAYAK TANDA, AURAD (B),
                        TQ. AURAD, DIST. BIDAR-585326.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          4.   MARUTI S/O NAMDEV JADHAV,
                        AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O. KESHAV NAYAK TANDA, AURAD (B),
                        TQ. AURAD, DIST. BIDAR-585326.

                   5.   BALLU S/O BHIMARAY JADHAV,
                        AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O. KESHAV NAYAK TANDA, AURAD (B),
                        TQ. AURAD, DIST. BIDAR-585326.

                   6.   MEERA W/O BALLU JADHAV,
                        AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                                 -2-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC-K:764
                                        CRL.P No. 200926 of 2024




      R/O. KESHAV NAYAK TANDA, AURAD (B),
      TQ. AURAD, DIST. BIDAR-585326.

7.    SRIDEVI W/O SHIVAJI JADHAV,
      AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O. KESHAV NAYAK TANDA, AURAD (B),
      TQ. AURAD, DIST. BIDAR-585326.

                                                    ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANJAY KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
      THROUGH PSI, KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN P.S,
      REP. BY ADDL. SPP,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      KALABURAGI-585101.

2.    CHANDRAKALA W/O TANAJI JADHAV,
      AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
      R/O. PRASHANT NAGAR , NEW RTO, OFFICE,
      NEAR KALABURAGI,
      KALABURAGI CITY -585104.

                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R1;
 SRI RAVI B. CHAWAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.528 OF BNSS, 2023 (OLD 482
OF CR.P.C.) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT
DATED 26.04.2022 IN CRIME NO.36/2022 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A), 504, 506, 323 R/W 34
OF IPC AND ALSO UNDER SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT, 1961
AND     ALSO   QUASH      THE    CHARGE         SHEET   FILED    IN
C.C.NO.4723/2023    FOR    THE        OFFENCE    PUNISHABLE     U/S
498(A), 504, 506, 323 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ALSO UNDER
                                -3-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC-K:764
                                     CRL.P No. 200926 of 2024




SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT, 1961 AND ALSO QUASH ALL THE
FURTHER   PROCEEDINGS         PURSUANT   TO    THE    ORDER    OF
TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 21.07.2023, WHICH IS PENDING
ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. JMFC AT KALABURAGI; GRANT SUCH
OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEF AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT
IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY


                        ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

Accused Nos.2 to 8 in C.C.No.4723/2023, pending

before the Court of I Additional JMFC, Kalaburagi, arising

out of Crime No.36/2022, registered by Kalaburagi City

Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 323 read with

Section 34 of IPC, are before this Court under Section 482

of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in

the aforesaid case as against them.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:764

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

after the marriage of accused No.1 and his

wife/respondent No.2, they were staying separately at

Pune. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has returned to her

parents' house and has been staying there. Accused

No.1/husband had initiated proceedings under Section 9 of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against respondent No.2 and

the same has been decreed with a finding that respondent

No.2/wife had withdrawn from the company of her

husband without valid reasons. By making false and

omnibus allegations, the petitioners, who are relatives of

accused No.1, are arraigned as accused in the present

case. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.2 have opposed the petition.

The learned for respondent No.2 submits that the

allegations are made against all the accused persons in the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:764

impugned criminal proceedings. Accordingly, they pray to

dismiss the petition.

5. Marriage of accused No.1 and respondent No.2

herein was performed on 27.04.2016 and after the

marriage, accused No.1 and his wife were staying in a

rented premises at Pune. From the wedlock a boy child

was born to the couple on 17.01.2020. In the first

information, it is alleged that after respondent No.2/wife

had given birth to the child, she was not taken back by her

husband. Allegation in the first information is that on

22.04.2022, the accused persons came to the house of the

parents of respondent No.2 and had quarreled with her

after demanding dowry. It is alleged that accused No.1 had

assaulted her and other accused persons instigated him.

It is further alleged that all the accused persons left the

place after criminally intimidating respondent No.2 and her

family members.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has

produced judgment and decree passed in M.C.No.45/2024,

NC: 2025:KHC-K:764

which was filed by accused No.1/husband under Section 9

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal

rights. In the said proceedings a finding has been

recorded by the jurisdictional Family Court that respondent

No.2/wife had left the company of her husband without

valid reasons. In the background of the said finding, if the

allegations, which are made in the first information filed in

the month of April 2022 is scrutinized, it becomes difficult

to believe the same. In addition to the same, general and

omnibus allegations are found as against the petitioners

herein and no specific overt-acts are made against them.

7. The material on record would also go to show

that after respondent No.2 had left the company of her

husband, she had taken shelter in her parents' house and

accused No.1/husband had initiated proceedings against

her under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In

the first information, it is alleged that all the accused

persons came to the house of parents of respondent No.2

and abused and assaulted her.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:764

8. 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 complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem

(2019)4 SCC 615

NC: 2025:KHC-K:764

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

NC: 2025:KHC-K:764

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 allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

9. 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.

10. This Court in the case of ASMA KHANUM @

NOOR ASMA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA &

(2019)4 SCC 615

(2019)8 SCC 642

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:764

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.

11. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion

that the prayer made by the petitioners requires to be

granted by quashing the impugned criminal proceedings as

against them. Accordingly, following order is passed:

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed.

The entire proceedings inC.C.No.4723/2023, pending

before the Court of I Additional JMFC, Kalaburagi, arising

out of Crime No.36/2022, registered by Kalaburagi City

Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 323 read with

2020(6) KAR.L.J.90