[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Kalavati vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1807
CRL.P No. 201877 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201877 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. KALAVATI
W/O PEERANNA PUJARI
AGE: 62 YEARS
OCCU: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O 85, BHUTALLI GALLI
CHITAGOPPA (RURAL)
TQ: CHITGUPPA
DIST:BIDAR-585412
2. VISHNU S/O PEERANNA PUJARI
AGE: 35 YEARS
OCCU: NIL
R/O T-9-773/1, ALAND ROAD
Digitally signed by NEAR GANDHI GUDI LAYOUT
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI SHAH BAZAR, KALABURAGI-585101
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 3. SHIDDARUDA S/O PEERANNA PUJARI
KARNATAKA
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER
R/O 9/2645/E, ALAND ROAD
NEAR GANDHI GUDI LAYOUT
SHAH BAZAR, KALABURAGI-585101
4. SMT. KASHIBAI @ KASHAMMA
W/O SHIDDARUDA
AGE: 26 YEARS
OCCU: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O 85, BHUTALLI GALLI
CHITAGOPPA (RURAL)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1807
CRL.P No. 201877 of 2025
HC-KAR
TQ: CHITGUPPA
DIST: BIDAR-585412
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LAGALI RAIMOHAN SURESH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE SHO.,
KALABURAGI MAHILA PS
REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI-585102
2. SMT. ANJALI W/O REVANSIDDA PUJARI
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCCU: TEACHER,
R/O GANDHI GUDI LAYOUT
NEAR SHETTY TALKIES
SHAHA BAZAR,
KALABURAGI-585101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. B. K. HIREMATH ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C (OLD),
U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
CRIMINAL PETITION AND THEREBY QUASH THE ORDER OF
TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE OF PROCESS DT. 30.10.2024
PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC., COURT, KALABURAGI IN CRIMINAL CASE
NO.11686/2024 (ARISING OUT OF KALABURAGI MAHILA PS.
CRIME NO.144/2023) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SE.
498A, 323, 324, 504 R/W S. 34 IPC AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1807
CRL.P No. 201877 of 2025
HC-KAR
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 BNSS, 2023 to
quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to
5 in C.C.No.11686/2024, arising out of Crime No.144/2023,
registered by Women Police, Kalaburagi City, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 324 and 504 r/w
Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge
and JMFC, Kalaburagi.
2. The factual matrix of the case is, respondent
No.2/complainant married Revanasidda i.e., accused No.1 on
08.06.2014. At the time of marriage, the parents of respondent
No.2 had given 3 tolas of gold, Rs.1,00,000/- cash and
household articles to accused No.1 and the petitioners as
dowry. After the marriage, husband of respondent No.2 and
these petitioners were cordial with respondent No.2 for a period
of one year. Thereafter, they started to harass her both
physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry. Later,
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1807
HC-KAR
she had begotten twin children on 17.12.2015. Even thereafter,
her husband and these petitioners continued their harassment.
The panchayat was conveyed to that regard and the petitioners
and accused No.1 agreed to look after respondent No.2
cordially. However, after sometime, they continued their
harassment. Finally, on 26.05.2023, respondent No.2's
husband picked up a quarrel with her and insisted her for
divorce and the other accused also instigated him to assault her
and threw her out from the matrimonial home. Hence, she
lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police on
07.11.2023.
3. On the strength of said complaint, FIR came to be
registered against accused No.1 and the petitioners in Crime
No.144/2023 dated 07.11.2023 for the aforementioned
offences. Subsequently, respondent No.1-Police investigated
the case and laid charge sheet against 5 accused persons for
the aforementioned offences, by arraying these petitioners as
accused Nos.2 to 5. Accordingly, learned magistrate took
cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1807
HC-KAR
petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 preferred this petition to quash
the proceedings against them.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
HCGP for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioners primarily contended that, these
petitioners being mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and
sister-in-law of respondent No.2, nowhere connected to the
matrimonial dispute between accused No.1 and respondent
No.2. According to him, on perusal of the complaint
averments, except vague and omnibus allegations against the
petitioners, absolutely no such specific allegations are
forthcoming against them and among these, petitioner No.3 is
brother-in-law of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.4 is wife of
petitioner No.3 and they are residing separately. In such
circumstances, he prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and
learned HCGP jointly opposed the prayer by contending that,
now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1807
HC-KAR
laid against the petitioner. The charge sheet materials disclose
that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 also instigated accused No.1 and
petitioner No.1/accused No.2 to harass respondent No.2 both
physically and mentally for additional dowry. In such
circumstances, the proceedings cannot be quashed against the
petitioners. 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 records, the complaint
averments disclose that, after the marriage for a period of one
year, respondent No.2 resided along with her husband and the
petitioners cordially. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 initially started
to harass her for additional dowry. The allegation against other
petitioners is that they also instigated accused No.1/respondent
No.2's husband for harassment. The complaint averments
further disclose that, on 26.05.2023, 06.07.2023 and
05.11.2023, accused No.1 alone assaulted respondent No.2 and
threw her out from the matrimonial home.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1807
HC-KAR
9. On careful perusal of the entire charge sheet
materials, the same depicts that, accused No.1/respondent
No.2's husband and petitioner No.1 i.e., mother-in-law of
respondent No.2, both were residing together in a shared roof
and there are prima facie allegations are forthcoming against
them. However, the other petitioners i.e., petitioner Nos.2 to
4/accused No.3 to 5 are concerned, except some vague and
omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations are
forthcoming against them and respondent No.2 also has not
specifically stated the date, time and place of harassment
committed by them.
10. 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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1807
HC-KAR
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.
11. Hence, in my considered view, continuation of the
criminal proceeding against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 i.e., accused
Nos.3 to 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
No.1/accused No.2 is dismissed and the
proceedings against her shall continue.
iii. The petition in respect of petitioner Nos.2 to
4/accused Nos.3 to 5 is allowed.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1807
HC-KAR
iv. The proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to
4/accused Nos.3 to 5 in C.C.No.11686/2024,
arising out of Crime No.144/2023, registered by
Women Police, Kalaburagi City, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 324 and
504 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
