Karnataka High Court

Prakash And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 14 February, 2025

Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

                                             -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062
                                                   CRL.P No. 201264 of 2024




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                    KALABURAGI BENCH

                         DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

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


                           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201264 OF 2024
                                  (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   PRAKASH S/O CHANDRAKANT PADSAVALI,
                        AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
                        R/O. KHAJURI VILLAGE,
                        TQ. ALAND, DIST. KALABURAGI,
                        NOW R/ AT KALABURAGI-585103.

                   2.   LALITABAI W/O CHANDRAKANT PADSAVALI,
                        AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                        R/O. KHAJURI VILLAGE, TQ. ALAND,
                        DIST. KALABURAGI-585314.

Digitally signed   3.   CHANDRAKANT S/O HANAMANTH PADSAVALI,
by SHIVAKUMAR           AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
HIREMATH                R/O. KHAJURI VILLAGE, TQ. ALAND,
Location: HIGH          DIST. KALABURAGI-585314.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          4.   BHEEMASHANKAR S/O CHANDRAKANTH PADSAVALI,
                        AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
                        R/O. KHAJURI VILLAGE, TQ. ALAND,
                        DIST. KALABURAGI,
                        NOW AT MUMBAI-400059.

                   5.   HANAMANTH S/O CHANDRAKANTH PADSAVALI,
                        AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
                        R/O. KHAJURI VILLAGE, TQ. ALAND,
                        DIST. KALABURAGI,
                        NOW AT KALABURAGI-585103.
                            -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062
                                 CRL.P No. 201264 of 2024




6.   NIKITHA W/O BHEEMASHANKAR PADSAVALI,
     AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. KHAJURI VILLAGE, TQ. ALAND,
     DIST. KALABURAGI,
     NOW AT MUMBAI-400059.

                                             ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANTOSH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     THROUGH KALABURAGI WOMEN POLICE STATION,
     KALABURAGI.
     (REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     KALABURAGI BENCH)-585107.

2.   KAMALA W/O PRAKASH PADASAVALI,
     AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O. KHAJURI VILLAGE, TQ. ALAND,
     DIST.KALABURAGI-585314.,

                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
 SRI SHARANAGOUDA V. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C (OLD) / U/SEC.
528 OF BNSS ACT (NEW)          PRAYING TO QUASH THE
REGISTRATION OF CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.9506/2024
(CRIME NO.20/2024) REGISTERED BY THE KALABURGI WOMEN
POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI 1ST      RESPONDENT POLICE
HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS. 498(A),
323,504, 506 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC AND UNDER SEC 3 AND 4
OF DP ACT, AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE, JMFC, KALABURAGI AND PASS ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE.
                             -3-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062
                                  CRL.P No. 201264 of 2024




    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.1 to 6 in C.C.No.9506/2024, pending

before the Court of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,

Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime No.20/2024, registered

by Kalaburagi Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506

read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4of

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are before this Curt under

Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to quash the

entire proceeding in the aforesaid case as against them.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that general and omnibus allegations are made as against

all accused persons. In the first information, it is stated

that accused persons had thrown out respondent No.2

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062

from her matrimonial house and thereafter, she was

waiting for a period of four months in her parents house

expecting that the accused persons would take back her.

Since they had not taken her back, she had approached

the police. He submits that for extraneous reasons with

an intention to harass and coerce the accused persons,

impugned criminal proceedings has been initiated.

Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for

respondent No.2 have opposed the petition. They submit

that after the investigation, the police have filed charge

sheet against all the accused persons, which would prima

facie go to show that there is certain material to

prosecute them for the alleged offences. Accordingly,

they pray to dismiss the petition.

5. Perusal of the first information dated

03.05.2024 would go to show that the marriage of

accused No.1 with respondent No.2 was performed about

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062

four years prior to the date of registration of FIR in the

present case. It is alleged that initially for a period of

three months, accused persons had taken care of

respondent No.2 in her matrimonial house and thereafter,

they started harassing and torturing her demanding

additional dowry. Respondent No.2 has stated that on

01.01.2024, accused persons abused and assaulted her

and threw her out of the matrimonial house for the reason

that she had not brought additional dowry. Therefore,

she was constrained to take shelter in her parents' house

and though four months had passed thereafter, accused

persons had not bothered to take her back and it is under

these circumstances, she had approached the police.

After completion of the investigation in the case, the

police have filed charge sheet against the accused persons

named in the FIR.

6. Perusal of the allegations found in the FIR as

well as in the charge sheet would go to show that as

against accused Nos.2 to 6, there are only general and

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062

omnibus allegations and the dispute primarily appears to

be between accused No.1/petitioner and his

wife/respondent No.2 herein. By making general and

omnibus allegations, accused Nos.2 to 6/petitioner Nos.2

to 6 herein, who are the parents and siblings of accused

No.1/petitioner No.1 herein, are also sought to be

prosecuted for the alleged offences.

7. 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

(2010) 7 SCC 667

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062

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 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

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062

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

8. 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.

(2019)4 SCC 615

(2019)8 SCC 642

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062

9. 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 accused, who are close

relatives of husband, are married and residing separately

and when the complaint lacks specific allegations so as to

implicate the accused for the offences alleged against

them, such criminal prosecution shall not be allowed to

continue.

10. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, if the

allegations found in the FIR and the charge sheet are

scrutinized, I am of the view that there is no material to

prosecute accused Nos.2 to 6/petitioner Nos.2 to 6 for the

charge sheeted offences. Accordingly, following order is

passed:

ORDER

The criminal petition is partly allowed.

2020(6) KAR.L.J.90

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062

The Criminal petition is dismissed as against

petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and it is allowed as against

petitioner Nos.2 to 6/accused Nos.2 to 6.

The entire proceedings in C.C.No.9506/2024,

pending before the Court of II Additional Civil Judge and

JMFC, Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime No.20/2024,

registered by Kalaburagi Women Police Station,

Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections

498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as

against petitioner Nos.2 to 6/accused Nos.2 to 6 stands

quashed.