[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Gomathi Acharya vs The State on 18 March, 2026
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4326
CRL.P No. 100744 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100744 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GOMATHI ACHARYA
W/O. LATE JAYATHERTHA ACHARYA,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. H.NO.6/26, BRAHMIN STREET,
NEAR KRISHNA MANDIR,
MALAKEDA, TQ: SEDAM,
DIST: KALABURAGI,
MALAKEDA-585292.
VISHAL
NINGAPPA 2. PRAHALAD ACHARYA
PATTIHAL S/O. LATE JAYATEERTH ACHARYA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
R/O. H.NO.6/26, BRAHMIN STEET,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
NEAR KRISHNA MANDIR, MALAKEDA,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH TQ: SEDAM, DIST: KALABURAGI,
MALAKEDA-585292.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SADANAND M.KENCHARAVAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE
THROUGH TUNGA BHADRA DAM
POLICE STATION HOSPETH,
TQ: HOSPETH, VIJAYANAGAR DIST.,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4326
CRL.P No. 100744 of 2024
HC-KAR
DIST: HOSPETH, REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011.
2. BHAGYASHREE J. W/O. VENKATESH ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OCC: ASSISTANT MANAGER,
AT KARNATAKA GRAMIN BANK,
HITNAL BRANCH, R/O. H.NO.60/2 DPLC,
NEAR NETAJI PARK, T.B. DAM HOSPETH,
TQ: HOSPET, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583225.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO EXERCISE ITS INHERENT POWERS
AND JURISDICTION U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., 1973 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1076/2023 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. JMFC AT HOSPETH
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, WHICH WAS REGISTERED IN
CRIME NO.34/2023 AND FILED THE CHARGE SHEET FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A), 420 OF IPC, AND
3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT R/W 34 OF IPC, AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS; AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4326
CRL.P No. 100744 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners
herein (accused Nos.2 and 3) under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1076 of
2023 pending on the file of the II Additional JMFC at
Hosapete, registered for the offences punishable under
Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, arising out of Crime No. 34 of 2023 of T.B.
Dam Police Station, Tunga Bhadra Dam Circle, Vijayanagar.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1, the State. Notice upon
respondent No. 2 has been served; however, respondent No. 2
remained absent and unrepresented.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
contended that the allegations against the petitioners -
accused Nos.2 and 3 - are only omnibus in nature. The
complainant has been residing near T.B. Dam, Hosapete,
since last two years. The complainant has filed a divorce
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4326
HC-KAR
petition in M.C. No.82 of 2024 on the file of the Principal
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, which has not been
contested by the husband, and a decree of divorce has been
granted by judgment and decree dated 19.08.2015. The
husband is now making efforts for settlement of the matter
with the complainant. It is further contended that the
complainant resided in the matrimonial house only for 2-3
months and thereafter started residing separately at her
workplace i.e., Kalaburagi by making a separate residence.
During June 2022, she was transferred from Kalaburagi to
Koppal. On these grounds, the learned counsel prayed for
quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader would contend that petitioner No.1 (accused No.2) is
the mother-in-law and petitioner No.2 (accused No.3) is the
brother-in-law of the complainant. On perusal of the
averments in the complaint, there are specific allegations
against petitioner No.2 (accused No.3), namely that he
assaulted the complainant by tying her hands. There are also
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4326
HC-KAR
allegations against petitioner No.1 (accused No.2) regarding
demand and acceptance of dowry at the time of marriage.
CWs.12 and 14 are cited as eyewitnesses. Hence, the learned
HCGP prays for rejection of the petition.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it is
seen that the marriage of the complainant with accused No.1
took place on 30.05.2021. At the time of marriage, the
complainant was working in Karnataka Grameena Bank, T.B.
Dam Branch, Hosapete. Thereafter, at the instance and
insistence of accused No.1 and the petitioners, she got
transferred to Kalaburagi Branch. As per the averments in the
complaint, she used to travel daily from her husband's house
at Malkhed to her workplace situated in Kalaburagi, for about
three months, and thereafter she started residing near her
workplace.
6. The allegation against accused No.1 is that he
used to suspect the complainant of having an illicit
relationship with her colleagues upon receiving phone calls
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4326
HC-KAR
from them. As per the complaint, on 09.04.2022, the
complainant returned to her parental house, remained absent
for duty for two months, and was later transferred to another
branch at Hitnal, Koppal District.
7. Considering the said allegations, the complainant
resided with the petitioners only for a period of about three
months, and during this period she used to travel daily to her
workplace at Kalaburagi. The allegations made against the
petitioners in the complaint are omnibus in nature. Though
eyewitnesses are cited, none are neighbours from Malkhed.
The witnesses cited in the charge sheet, i.e., CWs.9 and 12 to
14, are relatives of the complainant and residents of
Hosapete. No independent eyewitnesses, neighbours of the
petitioners, have been cited.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of
KAHKASHAN KAUSAR ALIAS SONAM AND OTHERS VS.
STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS1 wherein at paragraph
Nos.17 and 21, has observed as under:"
(2022) 6 SCC 599
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4326
HC-KAR
"17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances
expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC
and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of
the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing
the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant
as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the
said judgments that false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial
dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the
process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its
judgments has warned the courts from proceeding
against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when
no prima facie case is made out against them.
21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant
circumstances and in the absence of any specific role
attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust
if the Appellants are forced to go through the
tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus
allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the
relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to
undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in
varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an
eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the
accused, and such an exercise must therefore be
discouraged."
9. Considering the material on record, this Court is of
the opinion that the petitioners have made out a case for
quashing the proceedings. In the result, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4326
HC-KAR
(ii) The proceedings against the petitioners in
C.C. No. 1076 of 2023 pending on the file of
the II Additional JMFC, Hosapete, arising out
of Crime No. 34 of 2023 of T.B. Dam Police
Station, registered for the offences
punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
VNP / CT: VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
