[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Nagamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:835
CRL.P No. 201974 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. 201974 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. NAGAMMA W/O. TAYANNA,
AGE 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
R/O SANNA BAJARA MANVI,
TALUK MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-585 123.
2. TAYANNA S/O. PARASAPPA
AGE 65 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER,
R/O SANNA BAJARA MANVI
TALUK MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-585 123.
3. RAMESH S/O. TAYANNA
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA AGE 36 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER
DATTATRAYA R/O SANNA BAJARA MANVI,
UDAGI TALUK MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-585 123.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. DEVANNA S/O. TAYANNA
KARNATAKA AGE 34 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER
R/O SANNA BAJARA MANVI,
TALUK MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-585 123.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ADDL. SPP
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:835
CRL.P No. 201974 of 2025
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH,
(THROUGH MANVI P.S.,
DIST RAICHUR-584 123)
2. SMT. SUDHARANI W/O. SABJALI
AGE 31 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O MANVI NOW AT MANIKPRABHU LAYOUT,
RAICHUR, TALUK AND DIST RAICHUR-584 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS
(NEW), U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 20-07-2024 AND
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 856/2024 (CRIME
NO.270/2023 OF THE MANVI P.S ) FOR THE OFFENCS
PUNISHABLE UNDER/SEC. 109, 323, 498(A), 504, 506 R/W 149
OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT, WHICH IS NOW
PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MANVI,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
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.2 to 5 in
C.C.No.856/2024, arising out of Crime No.270/2023
NC: 2026:KHC-K:835
HC-KAR
registered by Manvi Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 109, 323, 498(A), 504, 506
read with Section 149 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 Civil Judge and JMFC at Manvi, Raichur,
2. The abridged facts of the case are that,
complainanat/respondent No.2 married accused No.1-
Sabjali i.e., son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on 23.11.2017
and the same was registered on 24.11.2017. After the
marriage, respondent No.2 and accused No.1 started to
lead marital life at Manikprabhu Layout, Raichur and both
lived cordially for a period of two years six months. Later,
accused No.1 addicted to bad vices and used to consume
liquor and use to abuse and assault her. As such, he
harassed her both physically and mentally. He also
insisted her to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and
threatened her that if she failed to fulfill his demand, he
would contract second marriage. According to her, for
NC: 2026:KHC-K:835
HC-KAR
such harassment of accused No.1, the petitioners i.e.,
father-in-law, mother-in- law and other family members
are also responsible and they instigated him. It is further
stated that on 13.10.2023 accused No.1 assaulted her and
thrown her out of the matrimonial home. Later, she
started to reside in her parental house. Subsequently, on
09.10.2023 accused No.1 visited her parental house and
quarreled with her and her parents and assaulted them.
Hence, she lodged the complaint against her husband and
petitioners on 13.10.2023, which was registered in Crime
No.270/2023 for the aforesaid offences. Later, respondent
No.1 - Police investigated the case and laid charge sheet
against all the five accused persons by arranging these
petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 5. Learned Magistrate
took cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same,
the petitioners filed this petition to quash the proceedings.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
NC: 2026:KHC-K:835
HC-KAR
No.1 - State. Though notice is served to respondent No.2,
she remained absent.
4. Apart from urging several contentions, the
learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, on
perusal of the complaint averments it is clear that at no
point of time these petitioners neither resided in the
shared house nor committed any harassment both
physical and mental to respondent No.2. Accused Nos.1
and respondent No.2 were residing at Raichur, whereas
these petitioners are residing at Manvi i.e., in a distance of
50 kilometers. Further, in the charge sheet material also
no specific averments are made against these petitioners.
He also contended that respondent No.2 filed a case under
the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act before JMFC at Manvi in
Crl.Misc.No.1914/2023. The said case was withdrawn by
her by filing a memo stating that herself and accused No.1
have settled the dispute and intend to reside in the same
shelter at Raichur. In such circumstance, he submits that
NC: 2026:KHC-K:835
HC-KAR
continuation of the proceedings against these petitioners is
abuse of process of Court. Hence, he prays to allow the
petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State opposed the
petition on the ground that now that charge sheet has
been laid against the petitioners, the proceedings cannot
be quashed. Hence, 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 perused the documents made
available on record.
7. As could be gathered from records, admittedly
complaint lodged by respondent No.2 clearly discloses that
after the marriage, she and her husband - accused No.1
were residing separately at Raichur. These petitioners i.e.,
accused Nos.2 to 5 are residing at Manvi. It is further
alleged that after the marriage, for a period of 2 years six
NC: 2026:KHC-K:835
HC-KAR
months, accused No.1 and respondent No.2 were residing
at Raichur and during that time accused No.1 alone
harassed her in the state of intoxication and the dowry
demand was also made by accused No.1. As rightly
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners the
memo dated 16.10.2025 filed before the JMFC at Manvi in
Crl.Misc.No.1914/2023 depicts that respondent No.2 has
withdrawn the domestic violence case filed against her
husband-accused No.1 and these petitioners stating that
herself and her husband are residing in the same shelter
at Raichur. Be that as it may, a perusal of the entire
charge sheet material, except omnibus allegations made
against these petitioners, absolutely no such prima facie
allegations are forthcoming against them to attract the
offences charge sheeted against them.
8. 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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:835
HC-KAR
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 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.
9. 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:835
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:835
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."
10. In the instant case, a bare perusal of charge
sheet materials clearly shows that the allegations made by
the complainant/respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus.
Therefore, the FIR and charge sheet lacks concrete and
precise allegations. The term "cruelty" cannot be
established without specific instance. The same weakens
the case of the prosecution and casts serious doubt on the
probability of the version of the complainant. The mere
general allegations of harassment without pointing out the
specific details would not be sufficient to continue criminal
proceedings against any person.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:835
HC-KAR
11. It is settled position of law that Courts have to
be careful and cautious in dealing with complaint and must
take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing
with matrimonial disputes, where the allegations have to
be scrutinized with great care and circumspection in order
to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of
Court.
12. Applying the findings of the above judgment to
the facts and circumstance of this case, I am of the
considered view that the proceedings against these
petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of Court.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 in
C.C.No.856/2024, arising out of Crime
No.270/2023 registered by Manvi Police
Station, for the offences punishable
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:835
HC-KAR
under Sections 109, 323, 498(A), 504,
506 read with Section 149 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, pending
on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC at
Manvi, Raichur is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SWK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
CT:RJ
