[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Tulasidas S/O Subhaschandra Bandagar ... vs The State And Anr on 20 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1666
CRL.P No. 200367 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200367 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. TULASIDAS
S/O SUBHASCHANDRA BANDAGAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. INDARNI NAGAR,
SUMANGAL SHREE BUILDING,
FLAT NO. 63, PUNA CITY, MAHARASTRA,
NOW R/O. DUTTARGAV VILLAGE,
POST KADAGANCHI, TQ: ALAND,
DIST: KALABURAGI
PINCODE-585311.
2. SUBHASCHANDRA S/O TULAJARAM BANDAGAR
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA OCC: NIL,
UDAGI
Location: HIGH
R/O. DUTTARGAV VILLAGE, TQ: ALAND,
COURT OF POST KADAGANCHI, TQ: ALAND,
KARNATAKA
DIST: KALABURAGI
PINCODE-585311.
3. MANIKBAI W/O SUBHASCHANDRA BANDAGAR
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
R/O. DUTTARGAV VILLAGE, TQ: ALAND,
DIST: KALABURAGI, PINCODE-585311.
4. UDAYAKUMAR S/O SUBHASCHANDRA BANDAGAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1666
CRL.P No. 200367 of 2023
HC-KAR
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. DUTTARGAV VILLAGE,
TQ: ALAND,
POST: KADAGANCHI,
DIST: KALABURAGI, PINCODE- 4130001.
5. PREMELA W/O KALLAPPA WAGMODE
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
R/O. ASHARA D. MART ROAD,
SHOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA
PINCODE-585104.
6. SUREKHA W/O NAGANATH MARATHE
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
R/O. VIVEKANAND NAGAR,
KALABURAGI, PINCODE-585104.
7. JAYASHREE W/O SANTOSH DHAYIGODE
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
R/O. AADIBASAVA COLONY,
UDNOOR ROAD,
KALABURAGI, PINCODE-585104.
8. KALLAPPA S/O YASHWANTAPPA WAGMODE
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC: RET. GOVT. SERVANT,
R/O. ASHARA D. MART ROAD,
SHOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA
PINCODE-413001.
9. NAGANATH S/O BASAVANTAPPA MARTHE
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCC: RET. GOVT. SERVANT,
R/O. ASHARA D. MART ROAD,
SHOLAPUR MAHARASHTRA
PINCODE-413001 AND ALAND COLONY
VIVEKANAND NAGAR KALABURAGI.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1666
CRL.P No. 200367 of 2023
HC-KAR
10. SANTOSH S/O HAREEBA DHAYIGODE
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVANT,
R/O. AADIBASAVA COLONY,
UDNOOR ROAD, KALABURAGI
PINCODE-585104.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHARANABASAVESHWAR MAMADAPUR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE
THROUGH MAHILA P.S.,
KALABURAGI, DIST: KALABURAGI
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT KALABURAGI-585102.
2. TEJASWINI W/O TULSIDAS BANDGAR
AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. DHUTTARGAON,
TQ: ALAND, DIST: KALABURAGI,
NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 4,
NAVAJEEVAN SOCIETY,
P AND T COLONY, OLD JEWARGI ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. R S KADGANCHI ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
EXERCISE ITS INHERENT POWERS AND JURISDICTION U/S 482
OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 A) TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.4314/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF HONOURABLE II ADDL. J.M.F.C. KALABURAGI, WHICH WAS
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1666
CRL.P No. 200367 of 2023
HC-KAR
REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.103/2019 AND FILED THE
CHARGESHEET FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.498A,
323, 354, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, AGAINST THE
PETITIONER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND TO PREVENT
THE ABUSE PROCESS OF COURT AND ETC.
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.1 to 10 in
C.C.No.4314/2019, arising out of Crime No.103/2019,
registered by Women Police Station, Kalaburagi City, for the
offences punishable under sections 498A, 323, 354, 504 and
506 r/w Section 149 of IPC, pending on the file of II Additional
Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi.
2. The factual matrix of the case is,
complainant/respondent No.2 married Tulsidas Bandgar i.e.,
petitioner No.1/accused No.1 on 12.06.2005. At the time of
marriage, her parents had given 50 tolas of gold, 2 kg silver
articles and Rs.10,00,000/- cash as dowry to accused No.1.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1666
HC-KAR
Thereafter, she started to reside in the matrimonial home and
they begotten a child. Since her husband was working in a
private company at Pune, she along with her husband went to
Pune and lived cordially for sometime. Thereafter, her husband
started to harass her both physically and mentally for additional
dowry and finally, she along with her son returned to parental
house at Kalaburagi for few days. Even though her parents
gave additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- to accused No.1, he
along with her in-laws started to harass her both physically and
mentally to get a share in the property of her father and finally,
they threw her out from the matrimonial home. Later, she
started to reside at her parental house.
3. Things stood thus, on 26.02.2019 at about 10.00
p.m., all the petitioners/accused trespassed the house of
respondent No.2 and abused her in a filthy language, by
demanding share in the property of her father and thereby,
assaulted her. Hence, she lodged a complaint on 05.07.2019.
On the strength of complaint, respondent No.1-Police registered
a case in Crime No.103/2019 against the petitioners.
Subsequently, respondent No.1-Police investigated the case
and laid charge sheet against the petitioners for the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1666
HC-KAR
aforementioned offences. Accordingly, learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 10 preferred this petition to quash
the proceedings.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
HCGP for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
5. By reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,
learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, respondent
No.2 and her husband were initially resided in Pune, where he
was employed and thereafter, she resided few days in the
matrimonial home and left the matrimonial home voluntarily.
He also contended that, in respect of alleged incident dated
26.02.2019, which said to have caused in the parental house of
respondent No.2 is concerned, there is an inordinate delay of 5
months in lodging the complaint. In such circumstances, he
prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and
learned HGCP jointly opposed the prayer by contending that,
now the charge sheet has been laid against the petitioners and
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1666
HC-KAR
case is set for trial. Further, they also contended that the
accusation column No.17 in the charge sheet clearly depicts the
specific overt act of all the petitioners. Hence, he prays 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 the documents made available on record.
8. As could be gathered from complaint and charge
sheet materials, it is admitted case of respondent No.2 that
after the marriage she started to reside along with accused
No.1/petitioner No.1 at Pune and there he harassed her both
physically and mentally for additional dowry. As such, she
started to reside at her matrimonial home for few days. At that
time also, she was harassed by her in-laws and they threw her
out from the matrimonial home. As such, she started to reside
at her parental house. As regards the subsequent alleged
incident of assault by all the petitioners on 26.02.2019, as
rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners,
there is an inordinate delay of 5 months in lodging the
complaint and no explanation has been provided as to why she
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1666
HC-KAR
did not file any complaint for a period of five months. Be that
as it may, except the allegation against petitioner Nos.1 to 3
i.e., husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, no such prima
facie or specific allegations are forthcoming either in the
complaint or in the charge sheet materials against others i.e.,
petitioner Nos.4 to 10 i.e., accused Nos.4 to 10 who are the
married brother, sisters and other relatives of accused No.1,
residing separately with their families. The allegation in the
complaint and the statement of witnesses against them are
vague and omnibus.
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 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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1666
HC-KAR
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. Hence, placing reliance on the above judgment, I
am of the considered view that the continuation of proceedings
against petitioner Nos.4 to 10/accused Nos.4 to 10 is nothing
but abuse of process of Court. However, prima facie allegations
are forthcoming against accused Nos.1 to 3/petitioner Nos.1 to
3, hence, the proceedings shall continue against them.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed in part.
ii) The petition in respect of petitioner Nos.1 to
3/accused Nos.1 to 3 is dismissed and
proceedings against them shall continue.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1666
HC-KAR
iii) The petition in respect of petitioner Nos.4 to
10/accused Nos.4 to 10 is allowed.
iv) The proceedings in respect of petitioner
Nos.4 to 10/accused Nos.4 to 10 in
C.C.No.4314/2019, arising out of Crime
No.103/2019, registered by Women Police
Station, Kalaburagi City, for the offences
punishable under sections 498A, 323, 354,
504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC, pending
on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC, Kalaburagi, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
THM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
CT-BH
