Kalavati vs The State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 752 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Kalavati vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 February, 2026

                                             -1-
                                                          NC: 2026:KHC-K:881
                                                    CRL.P No. 200920 of 2025


                   HC-KAR




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                         DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                           BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
                            CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200920 OF 2025
                                   (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   KALAVATI
                        W/O. SHIVARAJ BHOKKE
                        AGE 55 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                        R/O MALGAR COLONY, TRIPURANTH,
                        TQ. BASAVAKALYAN,
                        DIST BIDAR-585327.

                   2.   PRASHANT
                        S/O. SHIVARAJ BHOKKE
                        AGE 31 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE WORK,
                        R/O MALGAR COLONY, TRIPURANTH,
                        TQ. BASAVAKALYAN,
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA           DIST BIDAR-585327.
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI              3.   BALIKA
Location: HIGH          W/O. PRASHANT BHOKKE
COURT OF                AGE 24 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE WORK,
KARNATAKA
                        R/O MALGAR COLONY, TRIPURANTH,
                        TQ. BASAVAKALYAN,
                        DIST BIDAR-585327.

                   4.   VANISHREE W/O. GIRISH HALLIKHED
                        AGE 28 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE
                        R/O MANNA E KHALI CHITGUPPA, BIDAR
                        NOW AT R/O NO.25 4TH C -CROSS,
                        VINAYAKA NAGAR, KAMAKSHI PALYA,
                        BENGALURU NORTH-560079.
                           -2-
                                       NC: 2026:KHC-K:881
                                CRL.P No. 200920 of 2025


HC-KAR




5.   GIRISH
     S/O RAMESH HALLIKHED
     AGE 34 YEARS, OCC ENGINEER
     R/O MANNA E KHALI CHITGUPPA,
     BIDAR
     NOW AT R/O NO.25 4TH C -CROSS,
     VINAYAKA NAGAR, KAMAKSHI PALYA,
      BENGALURU NORTH-560079.
                                           ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANJAY A PATIL.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     THROUGH BASAVAKALYAN TOWN POLICE STATION,
     BASAVAKALYAN CIRCLE,
     DIST BIDAR-585327.
     REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     KALABURAGI.

2.   PRIYANKA W/O. PRAVEEN BOKKE
     AGE 26 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O MALGAR GALLI TRIPURANTH
     TQ. BASAVAKALYAN DIST BIDAR-585327.

                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHBUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI R S LAGALI, ADV. FOR R2)

     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO
QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO. 458/2025 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BASAVAKALYAN
DISTRICT BIDAR ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.124/2024
REGISTERED BY BASAVAKALYAN TOWN POLICE STATION
DISTRICT BIDAR, CHARGE SHEETED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SEC 498-A, 323, 504. 506 R/W 34 OF IPC IN
SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO 2 TO 6 ARE
CONCERNED.
                                -3-
                                                NC: 2026:KHC-K:881
                                       CRL.P No. 200920 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 Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings

against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 in

C.C.No.458/2025, arising out of Crime No.124/2024,

registered by Basavakalyan Police, for the offences

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

Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of Civil Judge and

JMFC, Basavakalyan.

2. The abridged facts of the case are that,

respondent No.2 married accused No.1/Praveen on

15.04.2022 at Humnabad. Thereafter, she started to

reside in the matrimonial home along with her husband

and petitioners. The petitioners and her husband were

cordially lived with her for some time. Thereafter, accused

No.1 addicted to bad vices and started to harass her both

physically and mentally. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused

NC: 2026:KHC-K:881

HC-KAR

Nos.2 to 4 i.e., mother in law and brother-in-law and his

wife, while in the house, instead of advising accused No.1,

they instigated him to harass respondent No.2.

3. On 17.06.2024 at about 12:00 p.m., when

respondent No.2 was engaged in cooking, all of a sudden

accused No.1 started to quarrel with her on intoxication,

assaulted her and thrown her out from the matrimonial

home. Though, respondent No.2 informed the said aspect

to the other accused, they also abused and insulted her.

As such, she lodged the complaint before the respondent-

Police on 27.06.2024, which was registered in Crime

No.124/2024 for the offences aforementioned offences

against the petitioners and accused No.1. Subsequently,

the respondent-Police investigated the case and laid

charge sheet against the husband-accused No.1 and these

petitioners by arraying these petitioners as accused Nos.2

to 6. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate took cognizance

of the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners preferred this petition.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:881

HC-KAR

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent

No.1 - State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned

counsel for the petitioners contended that, except some

omnibus allegations against the petitioners, absolutely no

such prima facie materials are forthcoming against them

for the offences they have been charge sheeted. He also

contended that, accused Nos.5 and 6 i.e., sister-in-law and

her husband are residing at Bengaluru and they are no

way connected to the alleged incident. Hence, continuation

of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse

of process of Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the

petition.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2

contended that, now the investigation is completed and

charge sheet has been filed. The statement of

eyewitnesses clearly reveal that petitioner Nos.1 to 3

being the in-laws, they shared the common roof with

NC: 2026:KHC-K:881

HC-KAR

respondent No.2 and accused No.1 and they have been

participated in the alleged incident by instigating accused

No.1. He also contended that the husband of respondent

No.2 contracted the second marriage, which was

entertained by petitioner Nos.1 to 3. Hence, he prays to

dismiss the petition.

7. Learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for respondent No.1-State opposed the petition

and prays to dismiss the same.

8. 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.

9. As could be gathered from records, respondent

No.2 being the wife of accused No.1 lodged the

complainant alleging that, after her marriage, she was

residing along with her husband and her in-laws i.e.,

petitioner Nos.1 to 3 i.e., accused Nos.2 to 4 in the

NC: 2026:KHC-K:881

HC-KAR

matrimonial home. For some time, she resided cordially

with accused and thereafter, her husband started to

harass her and petitioner Nos.1 to 3 instigated accused

No.1 to harass her. Admittedly, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are

residing along with accused No.1 and respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 placed the

photographs and stated that the husband of respondent

No.2 contracted the second marriage. In such

circumstances, the same would not have done by accused

No.1, without bringing it to the knowledge of petitioner

Nos.1 to 3. Hence, there are prima facie materials

forthcoming against petitioner Nos.1 to 3. The statement

of eyewitness also reveals the act of petitioner Nos.1 to 3.

Hence, the proceedings cannot be quashed against

petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.2 to 4. However,

petitioner Nos.4 and 5/accused No.5 and 6 are concerned,

admittedly they are residing at Bengaluru and there is only

omnibus allegation against them that, when respondent

No.2 called them over phone by informing the act of

NC: 2026:KHC-K:881

HC-KAR

accused No.1/husband, they abused her and to that effect,

no such call details or documents have been furnished by

the prosecution to substantiate the said allegation.

11. 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 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

NC: 2026:KHC-K:881

HC-KAR

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 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

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:881

HC-KAR

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 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 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:881

HC-KAR

13. 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.

14. In my considered view, continuation of criminal

proceeding against the petitioner Nos.4 and 5 i.e., accused

Nos.5 and 6 is nothing but abuse of process of Court.

Accordingly, the following;

                            ORDER


     i.     The petition is allowed in part.

     ii.    The petition in respect of petitioner Nos.1 to

3/accused Nos.2 to 4 is hereby dismissed and the proceedings against them shall continue.

iii. The proceedings against petitioner Nos.4 and 5/accused Nos.5 and 6 in

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:881

HC-KAR

C.C.No.458/2025, arising out of Crime No.124/2024, registered by Basavakalyan Police, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavakalyan, is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT:RJ