[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Vijayakumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578
CRL.P No. 201122 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201122 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. VIJAYKUMAR S/O SIDDESHWAR BHANGARAGI
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCCU: GOVT SERVANT
R/O MAINDARAGI
TQ: AKKALKOT, DISTRICT SOLAPUR
NOW AT PRESENT DISTRICT
SINDHUDURGA, MAHARASHTRA-416812.
2. VIRESH
S/O SIDDESHWAR BHANGARAGI
AGE: 35 EYARS,
OCCU: PRIVATE WORK
Digitally signed by
3. NIRMALA W/O SIDDESHWAR BHANGARAGI
SHIVALEELA AGE: 55 YEARS,
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI OCCU: HOUSE WIFE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. SANGEETA W/O VIRESH BHANGARAGI
KARNATAKA
AGE: 33 YEARS
OCCU: HOUSE WIFE
PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 4 ARE
RESIDENTS OF MAINDARAGI
TALUKA AKKALKOT
DISTRICT SOLAPUR
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA-413217.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. LAKSHMI G. E., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578
CRL.P No. 201122 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH WOMEN POLICE STATION
VIJAYAPUR, TALUK VIJAYAPUR,
DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR,
REPRESENTED BY
THE ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585103
2. SMT. KEERTI
W/O VIJAYAKUMAR BHANGARAGI
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE WORK, R/O K.C.NAGAR
NEAR DCC BANK, VIJAYAPURA
TQ: VIJAYAPURA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA
KARNATAKA-586103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI R. S. LAGALI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.
(OLD), U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
PETITION AND QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C
NO.918 OF 2025 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.201 OF 2023
REGISTERED AT VIJAYAPURA WOMEN POLICE STATION, FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 323,
325, 504 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN
PANEL CODE, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT VIJAYAPURA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578
CRL.P No. 201122 of 2025
HC-KAR
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.1 to 4 in
C.C.No.918/2025, arising out of Crime No.201/2023,
registered by Women Police Station, Vijayapura, for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 325, 504
and 506 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
brevity "IPC"), pending on the file of IV Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC, Vijayaypur.
2. The abridged facts of the case are,
complainant/respondent No.2 married petitioner
No.1/accused No.1 on 26.04.2021. Thereafter, she started
to reside in the matrimonial home along with her husband
and petitioners. The petitioners cordially lived with her for
some time. Thereafter, they started to quarrel with
respondent No.2 on the premise that she does not know
cooking and also she is not good looking. However, by
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578
HC-KAR
tolerating all the harassment meted out by the petitioners,
she continued to lead her marital life at her matrimonial
home for a period of 10 months. Thereafter, she left the
matrimonial home and started residing at her parental
house. Later, she initiated the proceedings against her
husband for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
When the said case was posted on 15.12.2023, on that
day, she and her husband-petitioner No.1 were present
before the Court. After hearing of the said case, petitioner
No.1 insisted her for divorce. When she refused, he
assaulted her. It is also alleged that her brother-in-law
i.e., petitioner No.2 was present at that time. Thereafter,
she took first aid in the Hospital and lodged the complaint
before respondent No.1-Police on 18.12.2023.
3. On the strength of the said complaint,
respondent No.1-Police registered the case in Crime
No.201/2023 for the aforementioned offences.
Subsequently, respondent No.1-Police investigated the
case and laid charge sheet against these petitioners for
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578
HC-KAR
the aforementioned offences. Accordingly, learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioners preferred this petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1 - State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioners contended that, the petitioners
never harassed respondent No.2 physically or mentally
and she voluntarily left the matrimonial home. According
to her, on perusal of the complaint averments, there is no
such specific averment that the petitioners harassed her
for additional dowry. Accordingly, she prays to allow the
petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
vehemently opposed the prayer. According to him, now
charge sheet has been laid against the petitioners and as
per the complaint averments and statement of witnesses,
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578
HC-KAR
all these petitioners have harassed respondent No.2 both
physically and mentally. In such circumstances, he prays
to dismiss the petition.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader
opposed the prayer and prays to dismiss the petition.
8. 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.
9. On perusal of the complaint averments, it is
stated that, after the marriage of respondent No.2 with
petitioner No.1, she resided cordially for few days in the
matrimonial home. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 started
harassing her for the reason that she is not good looking
and she does not know cooking. However, she resided in
the matrimonial home for a period of 10 months.
Thereafter she voluntarily left the matrimonial home and
started residing at her parental house.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578
HC-KAR
10. In the subsequent incident dated 15.12.2023 it
is stated that her husband-accused No.1 picked up quarrel
with her in the Court premises and assaulted her. Though
she mentioned the presence of accused No.2/petitioner
No.2 in the said incident, except some omnibus
allegations, there are no such specific or prima facie
allegations made against him. Presently, petitioner No.1
has filed a divorce petition against respondent No.2 and
in-turn respondent No.2 has filed a maintenance case
against him. Accused No.3 being the mother-in-law of
respondent No.2 residing along with accused No.1, also
allegedly instigated accused No.1 to harass respondent
No.2. Such being the position, in my considered view,
there are prima facie materials forthcoming against
petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and his mother petitioner
No.3/accused No.3.
11. Petitioner No.2 being the brother-in-law and his
wife-petitioner No.4 are residing separately and except
some vague and omnibus allegations against them, no
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578
HC-KAR
such specific overt act is attributed against them either in
the complaint or in the charge sheet.
12. In such 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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578
HC-KAR
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.
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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578
HC-KAR
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.
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 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578
HC-KAR
14. Applying the above findings of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the above judgments to the facts and
circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view
that the proceedings against petitioner Nos.1 and
3/accused Nos.1 and 3 shall continue. However, the
proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 and 4/accused Nos.2
and 4 is nothing but 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 Nos.1 and
3 is dismissed.
iii. The petition in respect of petitioner Nos.2 and
4 is allowed.
iv. The proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 and
4/accused Nos.2 and 4 in
C.C. No.918/2025, arising out of Crime
No.201/2023, registered by Women Police
Station, Vijayapura, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 325,
504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, pending
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1578
HC-KAR
on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC, Vijayaypur, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SWK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
CT-BH
