[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Satyabai vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2026

                                             -1-
                                                         NC: 2026:KHC-K:844
                                                   CRL.P No. 201932 of 2025


                   HC-KAR




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                         DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                          BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
                            CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201932 OF 2025
                                   (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   SATYABAI W/O. LATE SIDDANNA,
                        AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
                        R/O. SARASWATI COLONY, ALAND
                        TALUK-ALAND, DIST-KALABURAGI.
                   2.  SHILPARANI W/O. KRISHNA,
                        AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
                       R/O. EWS-09, RING ROAD, AADARSH NAGAR,
                       KALABURAGI-585 105.
                                                            ...PETITIONERS
                   (BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DATTATRAYA              REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
UDAGI                   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH          KALABURAGI BENCH.
COURT OF                (THROUGH KALABURAGI WOMEN PS.)
KARNATAKA
                   2.  MEENAKSHI W/O. SHIVANAND,
                       (D/O. SHREEMANTH WADE)
                       AGE 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
                       R/O.RAMTIRTH NAGAR, NEAR ALAND CHECK POST,
                       KALABURAGI.
                       NOW RESIDING AT KHAJURI VILLAGE,
                       TALUK-ALAND, AND DIST-KALABURAGI-585 314.
                                                          ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1)
                              -2-
                                              NC: 2026:KHC-K:844
                                    CRL.P No. 201932 of 2025


HC-KAR




     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 528 OF BNSS, U/SEC 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET AND
FURTHER CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.275/2025
(CRIME NO. 87/2024 OF KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN PS) FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W
SECTION 34 OF IPC, WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF
LEARNED I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
KALABURAGI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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

in C.C No.275/2025, arising out of Crime No.87/2024,

registered by Women Police Kalaburagi, for the offences

punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r/w

34 of IPC, pending on the file of Civil Judge I Addl. Civil

Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi.

2. The abridged facts of the case are that,

respondent No.2/complainant married Shivanand-accused

No.1 on 23.02.2014 at Aland. It is alleged that, at the

time of marriage, the parents of respondent No.2 gave

Rs.1,21,000/-, gold ornaments and other household

NC: 2026:KHC-K:844

HC-KAR

utensils to accused No.1. After the marriage, respondent

No.2 started to reside with her husband in matrimonial

home at Kalaburagi. It is alleged that, her husband-

accused No.1 being a lawyer in profession, due to his

physical problems, she was not conceived. However, after

sometime, accused No.1 started to harass respondent

No.2 both physically and mentally to bring additional

dowry of Rs.6,00,000/- from her parents. The said aspect

was informed by respondent No.2 to her parents, as such,

her parents visited the matrimonial home of respondent

No.2. Accordingly, respondent No.2 went along with them

and started to reside at her parental house. Thereafter,

respondent No.2 once again joined the matrimonial home.

3. On 07.05.2024, accused No.2/petitioner No.1

came to the house of accused No.1 at Kalaburagi and

instigated him and abused respondent No.2 with filthy

language, accused No.1 assaulted on her cheek and

thrown her out from the matrimonial home. Later, on

12.05.2024, when respondent No.2 was at her

NC: 2026:KHC-K:844

HC-KAR

matrimonial home, accused No.1 came there and

demanded additional dowry and threatened her with dire

consequences. Hence, she lodged a complaint before the

respondent-Police on 27.08.2024 and the same was

registered in Crime No.87/2024 for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r/w

Section 34 of IPC against these petitioners and others.

4. Subsequently, the respondent-Police

investigated the case and laid charge sheet against all

accused persons for the aforementioned offences, by

arraying these petitioners as accused Nos.2 and 4

respectively. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate took

cognizance of the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioners preferred this petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent No.1 - State.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:844

HC-KAR

6. Apart from urging several contentions, learned

counsel for the petitioners contended that, respondent

No.2 herself admitted in the complaint that she was

residing separately along with her husband at Kalaburagi.

Whereas, the petitioner No.1/mother-in-law resides at

Aland and petitioner No.2/sister-in-law resides in her

marital home at Kalaburagi. As such, they are not sharing

any common house at any point of time relevant to the

allegations. He also contented that, except omnibus

allegations in the complaint and statement of witnesses,

prima facie there are no direct allegations against these

petitioners for the offences they have been charge

sheeted. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

7. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State opposed the

petition on the ground that, now the investigation is

completed and charge sheet has been submitted and the

statement of witnesses prima facie disclose the offences

NC: 2026:KHC-K:844

HC-KAR

alleged against these petitioners. Hence, he prays to

dismiss the petition.

8. The notice issued to respondent No.2 reveals

that the Police have informed her through telephone,

however, she remained absent.

9. I have given my anxious consideration both on

the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

respective parties and perused the documents made

available on record.

10. As could be gathered from records, the

relationship of petitioners with respondent No.2 is not in

dispute. It is also not in dispute that, after the marriage of

respondent No.2 with accused No.1 on 23.02.2014, she

was residing along with her husband in matrimonial home

at Kalaburagi. The petitioner No.1/accused No.2 is residing

at Aland and petitioner No.3/ accused No.4 is residing in

her marital home at Kalaburagi. Even the complaint

averments depict that, these petitioners have not harassed

NC: 2026:KHC-K:844

HC-KAR

respondent No.2 while she residing in her matrimonial

home. It is the only allegation that, on the said date,

accused No.2 instigated accused No.1 to assault her.

Admittedly, no such medical reports have been placed by

respondent No.2 and the complaint was registered on

27.08.2024 i.e., after 4 months from the date of alleged

incident.

11. On careful perusal of the statement of

witnesses, they have not specifically stated about the

overt act of these petitioners, being the mother-in-law and

sister-in-law of respondent No.2. In such circumstance,

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

NC: 2026:KHC-K:844

HC-KAR

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.

12. 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

NC: 2026:KHC-K:844

HC-KAR

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

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:844

HC-KAR

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."

13. On perusal of the complaint averments, except

the general allegations of harassment, there are no

specific allegations stated against these petitioners. It is a

settled position of law that Courts have to be careful and

cautious in dealing with the complaint and must take a

pragmatic approach, realities into consideration while

dealing with matrimonial disputes, where the allegations

have to be scrutinized with great care and circumstances

in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of

process of Court.

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:844

HC-KAR

14. In my considered view, continuation of criminal

proceeding against these petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 4

is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, the

following:

ORDER

i. The petition is allowed.

      ii.        The       proceedings              against           the
                 petitioners/accused        Nos.2      and        4    in
                 C.C    No.275/2025,   arising       out     of   Crime

No.87/2024, registered by Women Police Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, is hereby quashed.