Karnataka High Court
Maningappa Alias Mahilingappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2176
CRL.P No. 100692 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100692 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. MANINGAPPA @ MAHILINGAPPA
RAMCHANDRA HATTI,
AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NEAR RAILWAY BRIDGE,
SHIVAPUR ROAD, KONNUR,
TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591231.
2. SHIVALILA W/O. MANINGAPPA
@ MAHILINGAPPA HATTI,
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. NEAR RAILWAY BRIDGE,
SHIVAPUR ROAD, KONNUR,
TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591231.
3. RAMCHANDRA
S/O. MANINGAPPA @ MAHILINGAPPA HATTI,
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. NEAR RAILWAY BRIDGE,
SHIVAPUR ROAD, KONNUR,
BK
MAHENDRAKUMAR TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591231.
Digitally signed by B K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.02.07 11:09:24
+0530
4. ASHWINI RAMCHANDRA HATTI
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NEAR RAILWAY BRIDGE,
SHIVAPUR ROAD, KONNUR,
TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591231.
5. GEETA MAHANTESH PUJERI
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE,
NAGANUR, TAL. MUDALAGI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591224.
6. MAHANTESH BASAPPA PUJERI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2176
CRL.P No. 100692 of 2022
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE,
NAGANUR, TAL. MUDALAGI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591224.
7. DUNDAPPA RAMCHANDRA HATTI
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NEAR RAILWAY BRIDGE,
SHIVAPUR ROAD, KONNUR,
TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591231.
8. BASAPPA UDDAPPA HUKKERI
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NEAR RAILWAY BRIDGE,
SHIVAPUR ROAD, KONNUR,
TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591231
PERMANENT R/O. HUNSHYAL,
TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591231.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VITTHAL S.TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY GOKAK RURAL POLICE STATION,
GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307.
2. SAVITA YALLAPPA HATTI
AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. KONNUR, NOW AT SANGANKERI,
TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591224.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1
SRI. VYAS DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO, QUASH BY THE REGISTRATION OF FIR IN GOKAK
RURAL P.S. CR.NO.21/2022 FOR OFFENCES U/S 143, 147, 498A,
494, 420, 323, 504, R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOKAK AS AGAIST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.3 TO 8 AND 11 AND 12.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2176
CRL.P No. 100692 of 2022
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners/accused Nos. 3 to 8, 11, and 12, who
are under investigation for offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 498A, 494, 420, 323, 504 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, have approached this Court seeking
quashing of the FIR registered in Crime No. 21/2022 by the Gokak
Rural Police Station.
2. The second respondent lodged a First Information
Report (FIR) stating that her marriage with accused No. 1 was
solemnized on 30.01.2015, and they led a cordial marital life for a
period of two months. It is alleged that thereafter, at the instigation
of his family members, accused No. 1 subjected her to mental and
physical cruelty and demanded money from her parental home. It is
further alleged that accused Nos. 3 to 6 assaulted her and
subjected her to cruelty. From the said wedlock, she gave birth to a
daughter named Laxmi, and along with the elders of the village,
she visited accused No. 1 to inform him about the birth of the child.
However, accused No. 1 and his parents did not visit her to see the
child. Furthermore, accused No. 1, during the subsistence of the
marriage, contracted a second marriage.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the second respondent cohabited with accused No. 1 for only two
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2176
months, after which she left for her parental home and lodged the
FIR after more than seven years, without offering any plausible
explanation for the delay. He further contended that except for
general and omnibus allegations, the complainant has not provided
any specific details regarding the manner in which she was
subjected to mental and physical cruelty, nor about any demand for
dowry.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant
submitted that the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of
offences alleged against the petitioners and that specific overt acts
have been attributed to each accused, detailing how they subjected
respondent No. 2 to cruelty. Therefore, he argued that the veracity
of the allegations requires investigation, and hence, no interference
is warranted at this stage.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate,
appearing for respondent No. 1-State, reiterated the submissions
made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
6. After considering the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties, the following is noted:
• A perusal of the complaint indicates that the marriage of
accused No. 1 with respondent No. 2 was solemnized on
30.01.2015, and they led a cordial marital life for two
months.
• It is undisputed that respondent No. 2 and her daughter,
who was then five months old, filed a criminal miscellaneous
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2176
petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 28.03.2016,
seeking maintenance from accused No. 1, which clearly
implies that respondent No. 2 had not been residing in the
matrimonial home since 2015.
• Despite this, respondent No. 2 suppressed the fact that she
left the matrimonial home in 2015 and lodged the FIR only
on 29.01.2022, without offering any plausible explanation for
the delay.
7. A perusal of the complaint further indicates that except
for general and omnibus statements, no specific overt act has been
attributed to the petitioners/accused, detailing how they subjected
respondent No. 2 to cruelty or demanded dowry.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others, observed as follows:
" The aforementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this
Court has, on numerous occasions, expressed concern over
the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency
to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes
without assessing the long-term ramifications of such trials. It
is further evident that false implication through general and
omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes, if left
unchecked, would result in misuse of the legal process.
Therefore, this Court, through its judgments, has cautioned
against proceeding against relatives and in-laws when no
prima facie case is made out against them."
9. Therefore, in the absence of any specific and distinct
overt act attributed to each of the petitioners herein, coupled with
the inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2176
continuation of the investigation would amount to an abuse of the
process of law. It is a well-settled principle that mere general and
omnibus allegations, without detailing the specific role of each
accused, cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution, particularly
in cases arising out of matrimonial disputes.
ORDER
i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned First Information Report in Crime
No.0021/2022 registered by the Gokak Rural Police
Station, Gokak Circle, Belagavi District, insofar as it
relates to petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 8, 11 and 12,
is hereby quashed.
iii) The Investigating Officer to proceed with the
investigation as against other accused persons in
accordance with law.
Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and are
disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
KMS
Ct:vh
