[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Vaibhav Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 4 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1008
CRL.P No. 202099 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 202101 of 2025
CRL.P No. 202102 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 202099 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 202101 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 202102 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 202103 OF 2025
IN CRL.P No. 202099/2025
BETWEEN:
SARASWATHI W/O. VIJAYKUMAR SATHNOORKAR
AGE 64 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
R/O MAHAVEER NAGAR, KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHETAN KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA AND:
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH BY KALABURAGI MAHILA POLICE STATION
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI.
2. SHABARI W/O. AKHILESH SATHNOORKAR
AGE 29 YEARS, OCC. SOFTWARE ENGINEER
R/O KALYAN NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI B C JAKA, ADV. FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1008
CRL.P No. 202099 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 202101 of 2025
CRL.P No. 202102 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS
(NEW), U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.12213/2024 (CR. NO.
44/2024) OF WOMEN PS KALABURAGI FOR OFFENCE U/SEC.
85, 115, 352, 351, 49 R/W SEC. 3 OF BNS ACT (U/SEC. 498A,
323, 504, 506, 109 R/W 34 OF IPC) AND SEC. 3, 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT OF MAHILA P.S KALABURAGI WHICH IS
PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDL. JMFC KALABURAGI, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN CRL.P NO. 202101/2025
BETWEEN:
VAIBHAV KUMAR S/O VIJAYKUMAR SATHNOORKAR
AGE 41 YEARS,
OCC. KEY ACCOUNTS MANAGER
R/O C-0804 8TH FLOOR
SHRIRAM SOUTHERN CREST
SARAKKI SIGNAL, JP NAGAR, 4TH PHASE
BANGALURU- 560 078.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHETAN KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KALABURAGI MAHILA POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI.
2. SHABARI W/O. AKHILESH SATHNOORKAR
AGE 29 YEARS, OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER
R/O KALYAN NAGAR, KALABURAGI- 585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI B.C JAKA, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1008
CRL.P No. 202099 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 202101 of 2025
CRL.P No. 202102 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.12213/24 (CR.NO.44/2024) OF
WOMEN P.S. KALABURAGI FOR OFFENCE U/SEC. 85, 115,
352, 351, 49 R/W SEC. 3 OF BNS ACT (U/SEC. 498A, 323,
504, 506, 109 R/W 34 OF IPC) AND SEC. 3, 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT OF MAHILA P.S. KALABURAGI WHICH IS
PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDL. JMFC KALABURAGI IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN CRL.P NO. 202102/2025
BETWEEN:
SHIVAKUMAR S/O SOMASHEKAR AIDNAL
AGE 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS
R/O 2-11-83/20 NEAR CHRUCH BY PASS ROAD
LINGASUR TQ. LINGASUR
DIST RAIHCUR- 584 123.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHETAN KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KALABURAGI MAHILA POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI.
2. SHABARI W/O AKHILESH SATHNOORKAR
AGE 29 YEARS, OCC SOFTWARE ENGINEER
R/O KALYAN NAGAR, KALABURAGI- 585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI B.C. JAKA, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS (NEW),
U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 12213/2024 (CR. NO.
44/2024) OF WOMEN PS KALABURAGI FOR OFFENCE
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1008
CRL.P No. 202099 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 202101 of 2025
CRL.P No. 202102 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
U/SEC. 85, 115, 352, 351, 49 R/W SEC. 3 OF BNS ACT
(U/SEC. 498A, 323, 504, 506, 109, R/W 34 OF IPC) AND
SEC. 3, 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT OF MAHILA P.S
KALABURAGI WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDL.
JMFC KALABURAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN CRL.P NO. 202103/2025
BETWEEN:
LAXMI W/O SHIVAKUMAR AIDNAL
AGE 38 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD
R/O 2-11-83/20, NEAR CHURCH BY PASS ROAD,
LINGASUR TQ. LINGSUR DIST RAICHUR-584122.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHETAN KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KALABURAGI MAHILA POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI.
2. SHABARI W/O AKHILESH SATHNOORKAR
AGE 29 YEARS, OCC SOFTWARE ENGINEER
R/O KALYAN NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI B.C. JAKA, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.
528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.12213/24 (CR.NO.44/2024) OF
WOMEN P.S. KALABURAGI FOR OFFENCE U/SEC. 85, 115,
352, 351, 49 R/W SEC.3 OF BNS ACT (U/SEC. 498A, 323,
504, 506, 109 R/W 34 OF IPC) AND SEC. 3, 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT OF MAHILA P.S. KALABURAGI WHICH IS
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1008
CRL.P No. 202099 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 202101 of 2025
CRL.P No. 202102 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDL. JMFC KALABURAGI IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
These petitions are filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 4, 5
and 6 in C.C.No.12213/2024, arising out of Crime
No.44/2024, registered by Women Police, Kalaburagi City,
for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323,
504, 506, 109 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [for brevity, 'the D.P.
Act'], pending on the file I-Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC, Kalaburagi.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that,
respondent No.2 in these petitions married one Akhilesh
i.e., accused No.1 on 13.03.2023. At the time of marriage,
the parents of respondent No.2 gave 60 tolas of gold, 80
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1008
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
tolas of silver and cash of Rs.15,00,000/- as dowry. After
the marriage, respondent No.2 started to reside cordially
along with her husband and in-laws for a period of 8
months. Thereafter, these petitioners along with her
husband/accused No.1 started harassing respondent No.2
for additional dowry on the pretext that they have debt of
Rs.2,00,00,000/-. Due to intolerable harassment meted
out by accused No.1 and in-laws, respondent No.2 fell sick
and on 05.01.2024. On that day, accused No.1 left her at
her parental home. Thereafter, on 09.01.2024, when she
returned to her matrimonial home, all these
accused/petitioners restrained her from entering the
matrimonial home and instructed her that, if she is able to
bring additional dowry, only then, they will let her to enter
the matrimonial home. As such, left with no other option,
she returned to her parental home.
3. Later on 02.02.2024, she once again visited her
matrimonial home along with her parents. At that time,
all the accused persons by instigating accused No.1,
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1008
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
picked up quarrel with respondent No.2 and thereby
accused No.1 assaulted her and other accused outraged
her modesty and foisted life threat to her. Hence, left with
no other option, she once again returned to her parental
house and started residing along with her parents.
Subsequently, she lodged a complaint before respondent
No.1-Police on 05.04.2024. The same was registered in
Crime No.44/2024. Later, respondent No.1-Police
investigated the case and laid charge sheet against all the
accused including these petitioners by arraying them as
accused Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6. Accordingly, the learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. Hence, the
petitioners/accused Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 are before this Court
i.e., in Criminal Petition No.202099/2025-accused No.2,
Criminal Petition No.202103/2025-accused No.4, Criminal
Petition No.202102/2025-accused No.5 and Criminal
Petition No.202101/2025-accused No.6, to quash the
proceedings against them.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1008
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners so
also learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1 - State and learned counsel for
respondent No.2 in all the petitions.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in all these
petitions, by reiterating the grounds urged in the petitions,
contended that accused No.6 is residing at Bengaluru and
accused Nos.4 and 5 are residing at Lingasugur, as such,
they are not sharing the common roof with accused Nos.1
to 3. In such circumstances, the allegations against them
are omnibus allegations in the complaint and other charge
sheet materials. Accordingly, he prays to allow the
petitions.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
and learned Addl. SPP opposed the petitions and
contended that, though accused Nos.4 and 5 are residing
at Lingasugur, accused No.4 being the sister of accused
No.1 is residing in her parents house along with accused
Nos.1 to 3 in the shared roof along with her son, who is
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1008
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
admitted in a School at Kalaburagi. They also contended
that respondent No.2 is ready to join the matrimonial
home, but only because of accused Nos.2 to 4, she is
unable to continue her marital relationship with accused
No.1. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petitions.
7. I have given my anxious consideration both on
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
respective parties and the entire charge sheet materials.
8. As could be gathered from records, the
relationship between respondent No.2 and these
petitioners is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that,
after the marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2,
they both started residing in the matrimonial home. In the
said matrimonial home, accused No.2 i.e., petitioner in
Criminal Petition No.202099/2025 and accused No.3 were
residing. Though it is contended by learned counsel for the
petitioners that accused No.4 is residing along with
accused No.5 at Lingasugur, the charge sheet materials
reveal that she has also equally participated in the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1008
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
harassment to respondent No.2 along with accused Nos.1
to 3.
9. Moreover, it is contended by learned counsel for
the respondents that accused No.4 is residing along with
her parents in her parental home and her son is also
staying at Kalaburagi. The statement of material
witnesses in the charge sheet clearly reveals that accused
Nos.1 to 4 harassed respondent No.2 and immediately
after six months, she was thrown out from the
matrimonial home. Though she tried to join the
matrimonial home, accused Nos.2 to 4 are not allowing
her to continue the marital relationship with accused No.1-
husband. In such circumstance, in my considered opinion,
there are prima facie materials placed in the charge sheet
against accused Nos.1 to 4.
10. However, insofar as accused Nos.5 and 6 are
concerned, i.e., accused No.5 husband of accused No.4 is
residing at Lingausgur and accused No.6, who is the
brother of accused No.1 is residing at Bengaluru and they
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1008
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
are not sharing the common roof. The allegations against
them in the charge sheet are omnibus allegations and
without any such substantial material.
11. In such circumstances, the proceedings cannot
be continued against accused Nos.5 and 6, as laid down by
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
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1008
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
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 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
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1008
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
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."
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
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1008
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
be scrutinized with great care and circumspection in order
to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of
Court.
14. However, as discussed supra, there are prima
facie materials forthcoming insofar as accused Nos.1 to 4,
hence, the proceedings against them cannot be quashed.
The continuation of proceedings against accused Nos.5
and 6 is nothing but abuse of process of Court.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal Petition No.202099/2025 filed
by accused No.2 and Criminal petition
No.202103/2025 filed by accused No.4
are dismissed.
ii. Criminal Petition No.202102/2025 filed
by accused No.5 and Criminal Petition
No.202101/2025 filed by accused No.6
are allowed.
iii. The proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 6 in
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1008
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
C.C.No.12213/2024, arising out of Crime
No.44/2024, registered by Women Police,
Kalaburagi City, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 323,
504, 506, 109 read with Section 149 of
IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 pending on the file
I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Kalaburagi, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SWK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35
CT-RJ
