Bharath And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr
2026 Latest Caselaw 1073 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Bharath And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 10 February, 2026

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310
                                                      CRL.P No. 200507 of 2023


                      HC-KAR




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                           DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                             BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
                               CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200507 OF 2023
                                      (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))


                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   BHARATH
                           S/O MALLIKARJUN BUDIHALA
                           AGE 33 YEARS,
                           OCC BUSINESS,
                           R/O GYANG BHAVADI, BASAVANAGAR,
                           DIST VIJAYAPURA

                      2.   MALLIKARJUN @ MALLAPPA
                           S/O IRAPPA BUDHIHAL
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA                 AGE 64 YEARS,
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI                      OCC BUSINESS,
Location: HIGH             R/O GYANG BHAVADI, BASAVANAGAR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                  DIST VIJAYAPURA

                      3.   NANDA W/O MALLIKARJUN BUDHIHAL
                           AGE 56 YEARS,
                           OCC H H WORK,
                           R/O GYANG BHAVADI, BASAVANAGAR,
                           DIST VIJAYAPURA

                      4.   BAGYASHRI D/O MALLIKARJUN BUDIHAL
                           W/O SAGAR DHOTRI
                              -2-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310
                                   CRL.P No. 200507 of 2023


HC-KAR




     AGE 35 YEARS,
     OCC H H WORK,
     R/O BENGALURU
                                             ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND V PATTANASHETTI., ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     R/BY ADDL SPP KALABURAGI,
     BENCH-585107
     (THROUGH PSI., WOMAN PS., VIJAYAPURA
     DIST VIJAYAPURA)

2.   ROOPA W/O BHARAT BUDIHAL
     AGE. 28 YEARS,
     OCC HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O MULASAVALAGI, TQ DEVARHIPPARGI,
     DIST VIJAYAPURA.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHBUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1)
       THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.
528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND
COMPLAINT REGISTERED IN VIJAYAPURA WOMEN PS CRIME
NO.42/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS.498(A),
323, 504 AND 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.4 OF THE D.P
ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. CIVIL AND JMFC (JR.
DN) COURT VIJAYAPURA.
       THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
                             -3-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310
                                   CRL.P No. 200507 of 2023


HC-KAR




                      ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of

this Court to withdraw the petition with liberty to renew

his prayer if marriage is dissolved between petitioner No.1

and respondent No.2 by decree of divorce.

2. In view of the submission, petition is

dismissed as withdrawn in respect of petitioner Nos.1

to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 are concerned.

As regards petitioner no.4/accused no.4, the

matter is taken up for consideration as under:

3. This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS,

2023, to quash the FIR, complaint and the proceedings

against petitioner No.4/accused No.4 registered in Crime

No.42/2023 dated 07.03.2023 by the Women Police,

Vijayapura, for the offences punishable under Sections

498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short,

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310

HC-KAR

'D.P. Act'), pending on the file of IV-Addl. Civil Judge and

JMFC (Jr.Dn.), Vijayapura.

4. The factual matrix of the case is, respondent

No.2 married Bharat-accused No.1 on 14.02.2021. At the

time of marriage, the parents of respondent No.2 had

given 5 tolas of gold, silver and Rs.1,00,000/- cash to

accused No.1 as dowry. After the marriage, respondent

No.2 started to reside at her matrimonial home along with

accused Nos.1 to 3. Though they treated her cordially for

sometime, thereafter, they started to harass her both

physically and mentally to bring additional dowry and also

accused No.1 and others were used to assault and abuse

her by insulting her. Though the family members made an

attempt to convey panchayat, accused Nos.1 to 3 and

petitioner No.4 are not ready to join the panchayat and

they continued their harassment. Finally, they threw her

out from the matrimonial home. As such, she started to

reside in her parental house.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310

HC-KAR

5. Things stood thus, on 19.02.2021 at about

11:00 a.m., accused Nos.1 to 3 and petitioner No.4 visited

the parental house of respondent No.2 and picked up a

quarrel with her and demanded dowry and they also

assaulted her and abused her parents by foisting life

threat. Thereafter, her husband or in-laws did not take her

back to the matrimonial home. As such, she lodged the

complaint on 07.03.2023, which registered in Crime

No.42/2023 for the aforementioned offences. Being

aggrieved by the registration of FIR, the

petitioner/accused No.4 approached this Court for

quashing the same.

6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner No.4 and

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

No.1-State.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner No.4 vehemently

contended that this petitioner is the sister-in-law of

respondent No.2 and she is married to one Sagar Dhotri

and they are residing at Bengaluru and no way connected

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310

HC-KAR

to the alleged incident. Despite, out of vengeance,

respondent No.2 implicated her in the alleged crime. As

such, he prays to allow the petition.

8. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader opposed the prayer on the ground that the

investigation is still under progress, therefore, FIR cannot

be quashed. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.

9. I have given my anxious consideration both on

the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

respective parties and documents available on record.

10. As could be gathered from the complaint and

other records, though omnibus allegations made against

petitioner No.4 along with accused Nos.1 to 3, the records

disclose that petitioner No.4, being the sister-in-law of

respondent No.2, married and residing at Bengaluru. In

such circumstances, the omnibus allegations made against

her cannot be taken into consideration on its face value.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310

HC-KAR

11. In such circumstance, the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of K. Subba Rao vs. State of Telangana

represented by its Secretary, Department of Home

and Others reported in 2024 INSC 960, at paragraph

No.6 held that the Court should be careful in proceeding

against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to

matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of

the husband should not be roped-in on the basis of

omnibus allegations unless specific instance of their

involvement in the crime are made out.

12. It is also settled position of law that, if a person

is made to face a criminal trial on some general and

sweeping allegations without bringing on record any

specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but

abuse of process of the Court. The Courts pose a duty to

subject the allegation levelled in the complaint to a

thorough scrutiny to find out, whether there is any gain of

truth in the allegations or whether they are made only

with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310

HC-KAR

criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution

arise from a matrimonial dispute.

13. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Dara Lakshmi Narayan vs. State of Telangana

reported in 2025 3 SCC 735, held in para Nos.25 and 28

as under:

"25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310

HC-KAR

28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them."

14. In the instant case, a bare perusal of FIR

clearly shows that the allegations made by respondent

No.2 are vague and omnibus. Apart from claiming that the

husband i.e., accused No.1 and his family members

physically and mentally harassed her for additional dowry,

respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or

described any particular instance of harassment. She has

not mentioned the time, date, place or a manner in which

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310

HC-KAR

the alleged harassment occurred or the details of the

nature of demand or its particulars. Therefore, the FIR

lacks concrete and precise allegations. The term "cruelty"

cannot be established without specific instance. The same

weakens the case of the prosecution and casts serious

doubt on the probability of the version of the complainant.

The mere general allegations of harassment without

pointing out the specific details would not be sufficient to

continue criminal proceedings against any person.

15. It is settled position of law that Courts have to

be careful and cautious in dealing with complaint and must

take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing

with matrimonial disputes, where the allegations have to

be scrutinized with great care and circumspection in order

to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of

Court.

16. In my considered view, continuation of criminal

proceedings against petitioner No.4/accused No.4 is abuse

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1310

HC-KAR

of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

i. The Criminal Petition in respect of petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 is dismissed as withdrawn and the proceedings against them shall continue.

ii. The Criminal Petition in respect of petitioner No.4/accused No.4 is allowed.

iii. The proceedings against petitioner No.4/accused No.4 in Crime No.42/2023 dated 07.03.2023, registered by Women Police, Vijayapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending on the file of IV-Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC (Jr.Dn.), Vijayapura, is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3;CT-BH