[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Gurunath vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741
CRL.P No. 200015 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200015 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. GURUNATH S/O SANGAPPA GADAGE
AGE: 39 YEARS
OCC: ENGINEERS
R/O BAKKACHOWDI VILLAGE
NOW AT KOLARA (K) VILLAGE
BIDAR, DIST:BIDAR-585401
2. VIMALABAI W/O SANGAPPA GADAGE
AGE: 58 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O BAKKACHOWDI VILLAGE
NOW AT KOLARA (K) VILLAGE
Digitally signed by BIDAR, DIST:BIDAR-585401
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
Location: HIGH 3. SANGAPPA S/O GUNDAPPA GADAGE
COURT OF AGE: 62 YEARS
KARNATAKA
OCC: FARMER
R/O BAKKACHOWDI VILLAGE
NOW AT KOLARA (K) VILLAGE
BIDAR, DIST: BIDAR-585401
4. RENUKA W/O ANILAKUMAR
AGE: 41 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O YARABAG VILLAGE NOW AT
TQ: BASAWAKALYAN
DIST: BIDAR-585401
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741
CRL.P No. 200015 of 2026
HC-KAR
5. ANILAKUMAR S/O KARBASAPPA BHALKEKAR
AGE: 45 YEARS
OCC: EMPLOYED IN PRIVATE FIRM
R/O YARABAG VILLAGE, NOW AT HUMNABAD
DIST: BIDAR-585401
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANJAY A PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BIDAR WOMEN POLICE STATION
BIDAR SUB-DIVISION CIRCLE
DIST: BIDAR-585401
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI
2. VIJAYALAXMI W/O GURUNATH @ GURUPRASAD
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O BAKKACHOWDI VILLAGE
NOW AT KOLARA (K) VILLAGE, BIDAR
DIST: BIDAR-585401
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI RAVI K. ANOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.
(OLD), U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.35/2025 ON THE FILE OF I
ADDL. JMFC COURT, BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR, AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SECS. 498(A), 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC
AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT AS PER CHARGE SHEET
(ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.64/2024 REGISTERED BY BIDAR
WOMEN POLICE STATION, DISTRICT BIDAR/1st RESPONDENT
HEREIN.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741
CRL.P No. 200015 of 2026
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 5 in
C.C.No.35/2025, arising out of Crime No.64/2024,
registered by Women Police Station, Bidar, for the
offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506
r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for brevity,
'the IPC'] and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 [for brevity, 'the D.P. Act'], pending on the file of
I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar.
2. The abridged facts of the case are, respondent
No.2 filed a complaint before respondent No.1-Police on
29.08.2024 alleging that she married one Gurunath i.e.,
accused No.1/petitioner No.1 on 11.02.2019. At the time
of marriage, her parents had given 10 tolas of gold and
household articles as a dowry. After the marriage, she
started residing at her matrimonial home along with her
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741
HC-KAR
husband, mother-in-law/petitioner No.2, father-in-
law/petitioner No.3 and others. She was residing cordially
with her husband and in-laws for a period of 5 to 6
months. Thereafter, her husband and in-laws started
harassing her both physically and mentally for additional
dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- to construct a house. Though
respondent No.2 pleaded her inability, they abused and
assaulted her. Though a panchayat was convened to that
effect, the petitioners continued their harassment. Finally,
they threw her out of the house one and half year prior to
lodging the compliant.
3. It is further alleged that on 24.05.2024 at about
7:00 p.m. she attended the housewarming ceremony of
her matrimonial home along with her family members. At
that time, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 abused her and assaulted
her. Hence, she lodged the complaint. On the strength of
said complaint, FIR came to be registered in Crime
No.64/2024 dated 29.08.2024 against the petitioners for
the aforementioned offences. Subsequently, respondent
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741
HC-KAR
No.1-Police laid charge sheet against the petitioners for
the aforementioned offences. Accordingly, the 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, there is an
inordinate delay of more than 3 months in lodging the
complaint. According to respondent No.2, the alleged
incident was caused on 24.05.2024, however, she lodged
a complaint on 29.08.2024. He also contended that the
provisions of D.P. Act do not attract against the
petitioners, since they have not demanded any money in
the form of dowry or received the same either at the time
of marriage or thereafter. Accordingly, he prays to allow
the petition.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741
HC-KAR
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
and learned High Court Government Pleader jointly submit
that, after the marriage of respondent No.2, she was
residing along with petitioner Nos.1 to 3. Petitioner Nos.4
and 5 used to visit the house of respondent No.2's
matrimonial home and instigated petitioner Nos.1 to 3 to
harass her. These aspects of the matter were stated by
the witnesses. They further submit that, since the
investigation is now completed and charge sheet has been
laid against the petitioners, the proceedings cannot be
quashed against them. Accordingly, they 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 the documents made available on
record.
8. As could be gathered from complaint
averments, after the marriage, respondent No.2 started to
reside with petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 i.e.,
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741
HC-KAR
her husband and in-laws in the matrimonial home. During
that time, they harassed her both physically and mentally
for additional dowry. According to her, they assaulted her
several times. However, petitioner No.4, being sister-in-
law of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.5, being the
husband of petitioner No.4, they both are residing at
Basavakalyana, Bidar. Even otherwise, no such specific
allegation against them is forthcoming either in the
complaint or in the charge sheet, except some vague and
omnibus allegations. In such circumstance, I am of the
considered view that there are prima facie materials
forthcoming against petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to
3. However, the allegation against petitioner Nos.4 and
5/accused Nos.4 and 5 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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741
HC-KAR
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.
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:
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741
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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741
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."
11. Applying the above findings in the judgments of
the Hon'ble Apex Court to the present case, I am of the
considered view that the continuation of proceedings
against petitioner Nos.4 and 5/accused Nos.4 and 5 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 Nos.1 to
3/accused Nos.1 to 3 is dismissed and the
proceedings against them shall continue.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1741
HC-KAR
iii. The petition in respect of petitioner Nos.4
and 5/accused Nos.4 and 5 is allowed.
iv. The proceedings against petitioner Nos.4
and 5/accused Nos.4 and 5 in
C.C.No.35/2025, arising out of Crime
No.64/2024, registered by Women Police
Station, Bidar, for the offences punishable
under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 r/w
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961, pending on the file of I Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC, Bidar, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SWK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26
CT-BH
