[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Vinodha Bai vs State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:6993
CRL.P No. 7900 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7900 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SMT. VINODHA BAI,
W/O SAMYA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE, D.K 25/B,
3RD CROSS, SUTAAN, BHADRAVATHI
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ S. JAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANGALURU RURAL POLICE STATION
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. SMT. SARITHA B
Digitally signed W/O JAYANAIK @ PUNITH,
by AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
PRASHANTH N
V HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT
Location: High DOOR NO.115/35,
Court of
Karnataka JAYANAGARA B-BLOCK,
NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE
KARNATAKA - 577 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1
SRI. A. HANUMANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE MAGNALURU RURAL
POLICE/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CR.NO.359/2016 AND QUASH THE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:6993
CRL.P No. 7900 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORDER PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C.-III COURT, MANGALURU TAKING
COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A), 114, 323, 504 AND
342 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IS
CONCERNED BASING ON THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CR.NO.359/2016 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.2635/2017.
THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner being accused No.2 in CC.No.2635/2017 on
the file of the learned III Additional J.M.F.C., Mangalore,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
114, 323, 504, 342 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'),
is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against
her.
2. Heard Sri Nagaraj S. Jain, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1 - State and Sri A. Hanumanthappa,
learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on
record.
NC: 2026:KHC:6993
HC-KAR
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner has made out any
grounds to allow the petition and to quash the
criminal proceedings initiated against her?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for
the following:
REASONS
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
a false complaint has been filed by respondent No.2, who
married accused No.1 on 16.06.2013. She stayed with accused
Nos.1 and 2 for a brief period of two weeks and thereafter she
shifted to Mangalore and started residing with accused No.1.
However, allegations are made which are not supported by any
materials. Only bald and general allegations are made in the
complaint. Hence, the petition is liable to be allowed.
5. On perusal of the first information, respondent No.2
being the informant has stated that, for few days she had
stayed in the matrimonial house at Bhadravathi and thereafter
NC: 2026:KHC:6993
HC-KAR
went to Mangalore and had stayed with accused No.1 since
13.07.2013. Accused No.1 use to suspect her fidelity and was
ill-treating her by abusing and harassing her. She also stated
that when accused No.1 had gone to Bidar on training, her in-
laws came and stayed with her and petitioner being the
mother-in-law abused and ill-treated her. She was forced to do
the house-hold work and was being subjected to cruelty.
Several instances of cruelty are narrated by respondent No.2
and the first information came to be registered on 13.03.2016
against accused Nos.1 and 2 being the husband and the
mother-in-law respectively.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a
document taken under Right to Information Act. According to
which, accused No.1 had never undergone any training at
Bidar. When it is specifically alleged that accused No.1 used to
suspected her fidelity and was ill-treating her, she has not
made any such serious allegations against the present
petitioner. Only bald and general allegations are made against
the petitioner, who is the mother of accused No.1. Admittedly,
respondent No.2 was residing in Mangalore and thereafter, in
her parent's house. Even if the petitioner had gone to house of
NC: 2026:KHC:6993
HC-KAR
accused No.1, the same cannot be found fault with as the
petitioner after all is the mother of accused No.1.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo
with additional documents to contend that respondent No.2 as
petitioner had filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.PC. seeking
maintenance from her husband. Even though there is reference
to ill treatment meted to her by accused No.2 - the petitioner
herein, the allegations are entirely different from the
allegations that are made in the first information. Under such
circumstances, the criminal proceedings cannot be proceeded
against the petitioner as the same would amount to abuse of
process of law.
8. Section 498A IPC was enacted to address cruelty
against married women. However, courts must remain vigilant
against its misuse through vague and generalized allegations
arising from matrimonial disputes, and prosecution should not
proceed where there are no prima facie materials available on
record. Furthermore, the allegations against relatives,
particularly those residing separately or having limited
interaction with the complainant, require careful scrutiny and
NC: 2026:KHC:6993
HC-KAR
cautious evaluation, and they must not be roped in at the
whims and fancies of the complainant with the intent to cause
harassment.
9. Prima-facie, there appears to be matrimonial
discord between husband and wife, which resulted in filing the
first information roping in the present in petitioner as accused
No.2. I do not find any justification for proceedings against the
petitioner for the offence referred to above.
10. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The criminal proceedings initiated in
CC.No.2635/2017 on the file of the learned III Additional
J.M.F.C., Mangalore, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 114, 323, 504, 342 of
IPC, is hereby quashed against the petitioner.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
MKM/BH: CT:VS
