[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Jyothi vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306
CRL.P No. 201472 of 2025
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. 201472 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. JYOTHI
W/O ERANNA @ VEERANNA MAVALLI
AGE 52 YEARS,
OCC HOUSEHOLD
R/AT MAHAMANE BADAVANE,
DHARAWAD - 580003.
2. USHA W/O YELLANNA @ YELLAPPA MAVALLI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/AT MAHAMANE BADAVANE,
DHARAWAD - 580003.
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA 3. ASHA W/O ESHWAR SHIRAGUPPI
UDAGI
Location: HIGH AGE 47 YEARS,
COURT OF OCC HOUSEHOLD
KARNATAKA
R/AT MALAYA MAHADESHWAR LAYOUT VARUNA
TQ AND DIST.MYSORE - 570010
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ C. JAKA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KALABURAGI WOMEN POLICE STATION,
KALABURAGI DIST.KALABURAGI - 585102
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306
CRL.P No. 201472 of 2025
HC-KAR
NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
2. SMT. PREETI W/O SHASHIKIRAN KAMARADAGI
AGE 30 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE
R/AT JAMKHANDI, TQ.BAGALKOT
NOW R/AT BHARPET
CHITTAPUR DIST.KALABURAGI - 585211
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. SWATI M N, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS (NEW), U/S.482
OF CR.P.C.(OLD), PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.4481/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. JMFC
AT KALABURAGI WHICH IS REGISTERED ON THE BASIS OF
CASE REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.15/2025 AND AFTER
INVESTIGATION FILED CHARGE SHEET FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 85,115(2),352,351(2) R/W 190 OF BNS
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
KALABURAGI WOMEN POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS TO
SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306
CRL.P No. 201472 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 7 in C.C.
No.4481/2025, arising out of Crime No.15/2025 of Women
Police, Kalaburagi, pending on the file of II Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable
under Sections 85, 115(2), 352 and 351(2) r/w 190 of
BNS, 2023.
2. The abridged facts of the case are that,
respondent No.2 married one Shashikiran/accused No.1 on
21.12.2011 and thereafter, she started residing at her
Matrimonial home. After one month from the date of
marriage, her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law
started to suspect her fidelity and as such, harassed her
both physically and mentally. Subsequently, they also
harassed her to bring additional dowry. According to her,
on 18.03.2025, her husband and mother-in-law threw her
out from the matrimonial home. Thereafter, she started to
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306
HC-KAR
reside at her parental home. Hence, she lodged the
complaint on 25.04.2025 before respondent No.1-Police
against the petitioners and others.
3. On the strength of the said complaint, FIR came
to be registered in Crime No.15/2025 dated 25.04.2025
against the petitioners and others for the aforementioned
offences. After the registration of FIR, respondent No.1-
Police, conducted investigation and laid charge-sheet
against the petitioners and others by arraying the
petitioners as accused Nos.5 to 7. Aggrieved by the same,
the petitioners preferred this petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1-State and learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2.
5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioners contended that these
petitioners being accused Nos.5 to 7, nowhere involved in
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306
HC-KAR
the alleged offences as alleged by respondent No.2.
According to him, these petitioners are separately residing
along with their respective family. Accordingly, he prays to
allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State and learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the petition and
pray to dismiss the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration both on
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
respective parties and documents made available on
record.
8. On perusal of the complaint and charge sheet
materials, respondent No.2 has categorically stated, after
one month from the date of marriage, her husband,
mother-in-law and brother-in-law i.e., accused Nos.1 to 3
have started suspecting her fidelity and harassed her.
Later, the petitioners demanded additional dowry and
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306
HC-KAR
harassed her both physically and mentally. Finally, on
18.03.2025, they threw out her from the matrimonial
home. As far as these petitioners are concerned, no
specific overt acts are forthcoming in the complaint or in
the charge sheet and the witnesses have also not stated
the specific overt act of these petitioners in the crime.
Admittedly, these petitioners are in-laws aged about 52,
50 and 47 respectively.
9. 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. It is also settled
position of law that if a person is made to face a criminal
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306
HC-KAR
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 criminal charge, more particularly
when a prosecution arise from a matrimonial dispute.
10. 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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306
HC-KAR
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.
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.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306
HC-KAR
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."
11. In the instant case, a bare perusal of FIR and
charge sheet materials 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 mentally harassed her with a demand for
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 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 respondent No.2.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306
HC-KAR
The mere general allegations of harassment without
pointing out the specific details would not be sufficient to
continue criminal proceedings against any person.
12. 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.
13. In my considered view, continuation of criminal
proceeding against these petitioners i.e., accused Nos.5 to
7 is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
a. The petition is allowed.
b. The proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 7 in
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1306
HC-KAR
C.C.No.4481/2025 arising out of Crime
No.15/2025 registered by Women Police,
Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under
Sections 85, 115(2), 352 and 351(2) r/w
Section 190 of BNS, 2023, presently pending
on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and
JMFC, Kalaburagi, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
MSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
CT/BH
