[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Amar vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2026

                                                -1-
                                                              NC: 2026:KHC-K:1632
                                                       CRL.P No. 201526 of 2025


                      HC-KAR




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                                        KALABURAGI BENCH
                           DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                                              BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


                               CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201526 OF 2025
                                     (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   AMAR S/O ASHOK CHAWAN
                           AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK
                           R/O LECTURE COLONY,
                           BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR-585328

                      2.   CHANDRAKALA W/O ASHOK CHAWAN
                           AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
                           R/O LECTURE COLONY,
                           BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR-585328


Digitally signed by
                      3.   REKHA W/O SUNIL
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
                           AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
Location: HIGH             R/O GODHIHIPPARGA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                  TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR-585328
                                                                   ...PETITIONERS
                      (BY SRI SANDEEP VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
                      AND:

                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                           THROUGH BHALKI TOWN PS BIDAR
                           DIST: KALABURAGI THROUGH SPP
                           HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                           KALABURAGI BENCH-585102
                             -2-
                                       NC: 2026:KHC-K:1632
                                  CRL.P No. 201526 of 2025


HC-KAR




2.   VAISHNAVANI
     W/O AMAR CHAWAN
     AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE
     R/O LECTURE COLONY, BHALKI
     NOW AT MADAKATTI VILLAGE,
     TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR-585102
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI DHANRAJ R. SURYAVANSHI, ADV. FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.
(OLD), U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO, QUASH THE
IMPUGNED FIR IN CRIME NO.162/2025, BHALKI POLICE
STATION, AS PER ANNEXURE-A DATED 05.09.2025 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BHALKI FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.115(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 85
OF BNS ACT-2023.

    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 Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the

FIR against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime

No.162/2025, registered by Bhalki Town Police Station, for

the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2),

352 and 85 r/w Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1632

HC-KAR

2023 [for short, 'the BNS, 2023'], presently pending on

the file of Civil Judge and JMFC at Bha, Bidar.

2. The factual matrix of the case is, respondent

No.2/complainant lodged a complaint before respondent

No.1-Police on 05.09.2025 alleging that she married one

Amar i.e., accused No.1/petitioner No.1 on 25.04.2022.

Thereafter, she started to reside at her matrimonial home

along with her husband, mother-in-law i.e.,

petitioner/accused No.2 and sister-in-law i.e., petitioner

No.3/accused No.3. They resided cordially for a period of

one year. Subsequently, the petitioners started to harass

her both physically and mentally on the premise that she

is not good looking and for other reasons. Finally, on

10.08.2025, they quarreled with her and assaulted her

physically and they thrown her out from the matrimonial

home and she started residing at her parental house. On

the strength of said complaint, respondent No.1-Police

registered the case in Crime No.162/2025 for the

aforementioned offences against the petitioners/accused

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1632

HC-KAR

Nos.1 to 3. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court

to quash the FIR.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Apart from urging several contentions, learned

counsel for the petitioners primarily contended that the

complaint averments does not disclose specific allegation

against the petitioners. According to him, the petitioners

were cordial with respondent No.2. On 10.08.2025,

petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had participated in

the Raksha Bandhan Celebration held by Vishwa Hindu

Parishath, Bhalki. He relied on the photographs of the said

incident. As such, he submits that a false complaint has

been foisted by respondent No.2 against the petitioners.

Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 - Police contended

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1632

HC-KAR

that respondent No.1-Police have investigated the case

and prepared the charge sheet and the same is yet to be

filed before the Court. Hence, at this stage, FIR cannot be

quashed against the petitioners. Accordingly, he prays 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 available on record.

7. As could be gathered from the complaint and

other materials placed by the learned counsel for the

petitioners, petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2

is the mother-in-law and petitioner No.3 is the sister-in-

law of respondent No.2. After the marriage of respondent

No.2 with petitioner No.1, she was residing along with her

husband and accused No.2 at the matrimonial home.

There are allegations in the complaint that they were

harassing her both physically and mentally. Though

learned counsel for the petitioners contended that

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1632

HC-KAR

petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had participated in

the Raksha Bandhan Celebration held by Vishwa Hindu

Parishath, Bhalki on 10.08.2025 by placing photographs,

the same has to be tested in a detailed trial. As such, in

my considered view the proceedings cannot be quashed

against accused Nos.1 and 2.

8. However, on careful scrutiny of the materials,

petitioner No.3 is the married sister-in-law of respondent

No.2 and residing separately at her matrimonial home. In

the complaint, except some vague and omnibus allegation,

there is no specific allegation attributed against her.

9. 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

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1632

HC-KAR

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.

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

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1632

HC-KAR

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 allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1632

HC-KAR

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. Hence, I am of the considered view that

continuation of proceedings against petitioner No.3/

accused No.3 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 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed and the proceedings against them shall continue.

iii. The petition in respect of petitioner No.3/accused No.3 is allowed.

           iv. The    proceedings      in   respect      of
               petitioner   No.3/accused         No.3    in
                                 - 10 -
                                                   NC: 2026:KHC-K:1632



 HC-KAR




                  Crime No.162/2025, registered by
                  Bhalki Town Police Station, for the

offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 85 r/w Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023, presently pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC at Bhalki, Bidar, is hereby quashed.