Jaishree vs The State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 1231 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Jaishree vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2026

                                                -1-
                                                              NC: 2026:KHC-K:1441
                                                       CRL.P No. 201388 of 2025


                      HC-KAR




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                                        KALABURAGI BENCH
                           DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                                              BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
                               CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201388 OF 2025
                                      (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
                      BETWEEN:
                      1.   JAISHREE W/O ASHOK SURVE
                           AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
                      2.   GANESH S/O JAGANNATH SURVE
                           AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
                      3.   SOMESHWAR S/O ASHOK SURVE
                           AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK
                           ALL ARE R/O H.NO.706,
                           MADDA BUILDING, D-BLOCK
                           ADITY GARDEN CITY, PUNE
                           MAHARASHTRA-411002
                                                                   ...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed by   (BY SRI. MOINAKHTAR NDAF ADV., AND
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA            SRI. ZAKIR HUSSASIN USTAD.,ADVOCATES)
UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              AND:
KARNATAKA
                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                           THROUGH KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN
                           POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI
                           AND ANOTHER
                           (REPRESENTED BY ADDL. H.G.C.P.
                           HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                           KALABURAGI BENCH-585107)

                      2    INDIRA W/O VAIBHAV SURUVE
                           AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD
                               -2-
                                           NC: 2026:KHC-K:1441
                                      CRL.P No. 201388 of 2025


HC-KAR




    R/O H.NO.706 MADA BUILDING, 'D' BLOCK
    ADITYA GARDEN CITY,
    NOW AT BUDDA NAGAR KALABURAGI.
                                         ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. G. B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MOHAN R. RATHOD ADV., FOR R2)

     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (OLD) /U/S. 528
OF BNSS(NEW) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
QUASH    THE    ENTIRE     PROCEEDINGS       AGAINST   THE
PETITIONERS    IN    C.C.   NO.4013/2024,     VIDE   CRIME
NO.46/2023, WHICH CAME TO BE REGISTERED IN F.I.R
NO.835/2023 OF KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION,
KALABURAGI, ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AT   KALABURAGI,     FOR    THE   OFFENCES      PUNISHABLE
U/SEC.498(A), 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF I.P.C.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                        ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings

against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C

No.4013/2024, arising out of Crime No.46/2023, registered by

the Women Police, Kalaburagi City, for the offences punishable

under sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of

IPC, pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,

Kalaburagi.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1441

HC-KAR

2. The factual matrix of the case is, respondent No.2

lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police on

08.04.2023 alleging that, she married Vaibhav Suruve/accused

No.1 in this case on 22.04.2021. At the time of marriage, her

parents had given 2 tolas of gold, Rs.51,000/- cash and other

household articles to accused No.1 and the petitioners. After

the marriage, respondent No.2 started to reside in her

matrimonial home along with accused No.1 and these

petitioners, who are the mother-in-law and brother-in-laws.

However, after the marriage, it came to the knowledge of

respondent No.2 that her husband had already performed a

marriage before her marriage. On 29.08.2021 at about 07.00

p.m., her husband and these petitioners were picked up a

quarrel with her and assaulted her on that regard.

Subsequently, on 16.09.2022 also, the petitioners and her

husband quarreled with her and these petitioners threatened

her that, accused No.1/husband would give divorce to her and

perform another marriage. When she resisted the same, they

assaulted her and thrown her out from the matrimonial home.

As such, she lodged the complaint before respondent No.1-

Police, which registered in Crime No.46/2023 dated 08.04.2023

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1441

HC-KAR

for the aforementioned offences. Subsequently, respondent

No.1-Police filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and the

petitioners for the aforementioned offences by arraying these

petitioners as accused Nos.2 to 4. The learned Magistrate took

cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners preferred this petition to quash the proceedings.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

HGCP for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

4. It is contented by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that, in the complaint and charge sheet materials,

there are no allegations forthcoming against these petitioners,

who are accused Nos.2 to 4, except some vague and omnibus

allegations. He also contended that, respondent No.2 herself

used to quarrel with accused No.1 and these petitioners, by

suspecting that accused No.1 already performed the marriage

before marrying her. In such circumstance, he prays to allow

the petition.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1-

State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1441

HC-KAR

prayer on the ground that, now the charge sheet has been

submitted in this case and there are prima facie materials are

forthcoming against these petitioners. Accordingly, they pray to

dismiss the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration both on the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective

parties and the documents made available on record.

7. As could be gathered from the complaint and other

charge sheet materials, petitioner No.1/accused No.2, being the

mother of accused No.1 i.e., mother-in-law of respondent No.2,

there is a clear allegation against her that, along with accused

No.1 she also harassed respondent No.2, without giving proper

food to her.

8. However, petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.3 and

4 are concerned, except some omnibus and vague allegations

that they also instigated accused Nos.1 and 2 to harass

respondent No.2, absolutely no other prima facie material

evidences are forthcoming against them. The statement of

witnesses also discloses that they instigated accused Nos.1 and

2, without mentioning any specific incident or date. In such

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1441

HC-KAR

circumstances, 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 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.

9. 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:

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1441

HC-KAR

"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.

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

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1441

HC-KAR

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."

10. Hence, even if the entire allegations in the charge

sheet taken on its face value, there is no such prima facie case

made out against petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.3 and 4.

As such, continuation of proceedings against petitioner

No.1/accused No.2 is abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed in part.

ii) The petition in respect of petitioner No.1/accused No.2 is dismissed and the proceedings against her shall continue.

iii) The petition in respect of petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.3 and 4 is allowed.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1441

HC-KAR

iv) The proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 /accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.4013/2024, arising out of Crime No.46/2023, registered by the Women Police, Kalaburagi City, for the offences punishable under sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21/CT-BH