- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2433 CRL.P No. 200841 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200841 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. BASAVARAJ GALAGIN S/O YENKOBA, AGE:33 YEARS, OCC: GOVT OFFICIAL NON-GAZETTE, R/O. BUDDINNI, TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR-584124. 2. PADDAMMA W/O YENKOBA, AGE:71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BUDDINNI, TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR-584124. 3. YANKOBA S/O LATE BASAYYA, AGE:76 YEARS, OCC: FARMER, R/O. BUDDINNI, TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR-584124. 4. RANGANATHA S/O YENKOBA, AGE:41 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. OFFICIAL NON-GAZETTE, R/O. BUDDINNI, TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR-584124. 5. NAGARAJA S/O YENKOBA, AGE:31 YEARS, OCC: FARMER, R/O. BUDDINNI, TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR-584124. 6. NAGAMMA W/O MALLIKARJUN, AGE:46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2433 CRL.P No. 200841 of 2024 R/O. KAVITAL 74 CAMP, RAMNAGAR, TQ. SIRWAR, RAMNAGAR, DIST. RAICHUR-584129. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH RAICHUR WOMEN P.S, DIST. RAICHUR-584101, R/BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585107. 2. ROOPA W/O BASAVARAJ GALAGIN, AGE:33 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. OFFICIAL NON-GAZETTED, R/O. RAICHUR, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF PROCESS DATED 24.01.2024 PASSED BY II ADDL. SR. CJ AND JMFC RAICHUR IN C.C NO.259/2024 (RAICHUR WOMEN PS CRIME NO.98/2023 DISTRICT RAICHUR) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECs 498-A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2433 CRL.P No. 200841 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the order of taking cognizance and issuance of process dated 24.01.2024 in C.C.No.259/2024 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Raichur. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The respondent No.2 married accused No.1 / petitioner No.1 on 18.02.2013. The couple had two children. The respondent No.2 after the marriage, started residing with her in-laws at her matrimonial home. It is further stated that, she had been appointed by the State Government in the Health Department in the year 2017. She along with accused No.1 started residing at Raichur. When she was residing at Raichur, accused Nos.2 to 6 stated to have gone to the house and insulted her and teased her that she does not know how to cook the food and also suspecting her fidelity. Thereafter, she kept quiet by anticipating the future of her children. 3. On 21.11.2023, at about 09.00 p.m., when the complainant was talking with others over the phone, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2433 CRL.P No. 200841 of 2024 accused No.1 started assaulting her by suspecting her fidelity. In the meantime, CWs.7 to 9, being the neighbours, intervened and pacified the quarrel. Therefore, she lodges the complaint against all the petitioners. 4. The Trial Court after taking cognizance, proceeded to issue summons to all the petitioners. Therefore, they have approached this Court. 5. Heard Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2 has made omnibus allegations against all the family members including her husband that all the petitioners were harassing her by suspecting the fidelity and also ill-treated her on the ground that she was not preparing the food properly. However, she has made further allegation of assault and criminal intimidation against accused No.1, who is her husband. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2433 CRL.P No. 200841 of 2024 7. It is further submitted that, when there are omnibus allegations made against the petitioners that they were harassing her without assigning proper overt act, certainly, it would not attract the ingredients of the provisions of which respondent No.1 – Police have inserted the provisions. Moreover, respondent No.2 was residing separately along with accused No.1 since 2017 and the complaint came to be registered by her against all the petitioners on 23.11.2023. Therefore, the petition has to be allowed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently submitted that the husband and in-laws of respondent No.2 were continuously subjecting her to cruelty and harassment in her matrimonial home. The petitioners have not only suspecting her fidelity, but also, harassing her in one or the other pretext and also teasing her. 9. The averments of the complaint and also charge sheet would indicate that there are prima facie materials to proceed against the petitioners to frame the charge. At this stage, it is not appropriate to quash the entire - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2433 CRL.P No. 200841 of 2024 proceedings against the petitioners without being subjected to face the trial. Therefore, the petition has to be rejected. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 prays to reject the petition. 10. Similarly, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State adopted the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.2 and he further submitted that the averments of the charge sheet are considered as facts and the same has to be tested through the trial. Therefore, the petition has to be dismissed in order to secure the ends of justice to the victim. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to reject the petition. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint and the charge sheet, it makes it clear that there are some issues between the respondent No.2 and her husband and in- laws. She was residing in Maruti Nagar at Raichur since 2017. Her marriage was solemnized in the year 2013. She further stated in her complaint that she was being insulted by her in-laws stating that she was not preparing - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2433 CRL.P No. 200841 of 2024 the food properly and she was talking with others over the phone etc. 12. It is held that in fact, the inception of Section 498-A of IPC is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry, however, sometimes it is misused as in the present case. 13. Now, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Digambar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another1, in paragraph No.33, which reads as under: 33. It would again, be apposite to refer to the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra) wherein this Court has discussed the objective of Section 498-A of IPC and has also raised its concerns over the misuse of this Section in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed thus: “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 1 2024 SCC Online SC 3836 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2433 CRL.P No. 200841 of 2024 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. 29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2433 CRL.P No. 200841 of 2024 we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said case opined that the provision under Section 498A of IPC is being misused or sometimes recourse is taken against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of the wife. It is further held that the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again cautioned against the prosecuting of the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. 15. Having considered the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the subject matter, now in the present case, though it appears from the record that respondent No.2 was staying with accused No.1 since 2017, she had - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2433 CRL.P No. 200841 of 2024 lodged a complaint in the year 2023 stating that the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 have harassed and abused her in one or the other pretext and also she stated that accused No.1 had assaulted her when she was talking with others over phone, by suspecting her fidelity etc., All the allegations made against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are omnibus in nature. Even if they have been subjected to face the trial, the possibility of recording conviction would be bleak. Therefore, it is not appropriate to allow them to face the trial. 16. However, as regards the incident said to have taken place on 21.11.2023 is concerned, accused No.1 has to face the trial as the said incident particularly relates to accused No.1. 17. With the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) As regards petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 in - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2433 CRL.P No. 200841 of 2024 C.C.No.259/2024 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC at Raichur are hereby quashed. (iii) As regards petitioner No.1 is concerned, the petition stands rejected. (iv) The Trial Court is directed to proceed against Accused No. 1 in respect of the incident on 21.11.2023 in accordance with law. (v) The Registry is directed to send the records along with the order of this Court for further proceedings. SD/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SRT/Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 CT:PK