Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shantamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 January, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:156
CRL.P No. 103156 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103156 OF 2024
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHANTAMMA
W/O DURAGAPPA MAILAR,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: SHIVALING NAGAR,
1ST CROSS, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI-581 110.
2. NAGARAJ S/O DURGAPPA MAILAR,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: SHIVALING NAGAR, 1ST CROSS,
TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI-581 110.
3. SMT. SHAKUNTALA @ PUSHPA
Digitally signed by W/O SANNAGUDDAPPA MAYAPPANAVAR,
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
Location: HIGH
R/O: 1ST CROSS, MARUTI NAGAR,
MOHANKUMAR COURT OF
B SHELAR KARNATAKA TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581 115.
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2025.01.10
... PETITIONERS
12:40:21 +0530
(BY SRI. PRUTHVIRAJ P. HITTALAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH HAVERI WOMAN POLICE STATION,
R/BY IT'S STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD-580 01.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:156
CRL.P No. 103156 of 2024
2. SMT. KAVITA W/O TIPPESHKUMAR MAILAR,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: SHIVALING NAGAR, HAVERI,
NOW RESIDNG AT: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581 115.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. T. BASAVANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SE. 482 OF CR.P.C.
(U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS, ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR IN
CRIME NO.45/2024 DATED 08.07.2024 REGISTERED BY
HAVERI WOMEN P.S., FOR OFFENCES SEC 498A, 323, 504,
506 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONERS
NO.1 TO 3 HEREIN/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4.
THIS PETITION IS 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.2 to 4, challenge the
registration of the FIR in Crime No.45/2024 with Haveri Women
Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:156
2. The second respondent lodged the FIR stating that she
is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1 and that their marriage
was solemnized in 2013. Two children were born out of the
wedlock. She resided in the matrimonial home in Haveri, while her
husband, accused No.1, worked in Raichur and visited the
matrimonial home as and when convenient. Subsequently, when
accused No.1 was transferred to Dandeli, the second respondent
began residing with him there. During their stay in Dandeli,
accused No.1 allegedly harassed her physically and mentally and
demanded money from her parental home.
3. Later, the couple shifted back to Haveri. During her
stay in Haveri, the second respondent alleged that accused No.1
(her husband), accused No.2 (mother-in-law), accused No.3
(brother-in-law), and accused No.4 (sister-in-law) harassed her
physically and mentally and demanded money from her parental
home. She alleged that on 24.06.2023, she was forced to leave the
matrimonial home and has been residing in Byadgi since then.
Further, she claimed that on 07.06.2024, when she went to the
matrimonial home in Haveri to visit her children, the accused
abused her and assaulted her.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-
State, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 (informant).
5. As per the averments in the complaint, the second
respondent left the matrimonial home on 24.06.2023. Admittedly,
accused No.1 had already filed a petition for the dissolution of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:156
marriage on 30.06.2023. The impugned FIR was lodged on
08.07.2024, more than a year after the second respondent claimed
to have left the matrimonial home.
6. While the allegations against accused No.1 are
specific in nature, relating to physical and mental harassment and
the demand for money, the allegations against the petitioners
(accused Nos.2 to 4) are general and omnibus in nature. There are
no specific overt acts attributed to accused Nos.2 to 4 to
substantiate how and in what manner they allegedly subjected the
second respondent to cruelty.
7. In the absence of specific and corroborative allegations
against the petitioners, continuing criminal proceedings against
them would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
8. The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 162at para No.18 has held as follows:
"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances
expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and
the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the
husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long
term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the
accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that
false implication by way of general omnibus allegations
made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked
would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this
court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from
proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband
when no prima facie case is made out against them."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:156
9. Therefore, accused Nos.2 to 4 cannot be subjected to
investigation only on the basis of omnibus and general allegation.
Therefore, continuation of investigation against the
petitioners/accused herein would be an abuse of process of law.
10. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.0045/2024
registered by the Haveri Women Police Station,
Haveri Sub-Division, Haveri, insofar as accused
Nos.2 to 4, the petitioners herein, is hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
KMS
CT:BCK
