- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1603 CRL.P No. 200762 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200762 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. DEVAKAMMA W/O SHEKHAPPA KUMBAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. JALIBENCHI, TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI - 585855220 2. SHEKHAPPA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA KUMBAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JALIBENCHI, TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI. 585855220 3. BASAVARAJ S/O SHEKHAPPA KUMBAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: JCB OPERATOR, (COOLIE AS PER CHARGE SHEET), R/O. JALIBENCHI, TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI. 585855220 4. ANNAPURNA D/O SHEKHAPPA KUMBAR, (THE CORRECT NAME IS ANNAPURNA W/O BASAVARAJ, D/O SHANKREPPA), AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. JALIBENCHI, TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI. 585855220 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1603 CRL.P No. 200762 of 2024 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH, (THROUGH KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN PS., TQ. AND DISTR. KALABURAGI). 2. SMT. PAVITRA W/O CHANDRU KUMBAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. JALIBENCHI, TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI. 585855220 NOW RESIDING AT SWARGET NAGAR, KALABURAGI, TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP FOR R1 SRI B.C. JAKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 16.11.2022 IN C.C. NO. 20127/2022 (CRIME NO. 45/2022) PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KALABURAGI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 498A, 323, 504, 506, 109 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:1603 CRL.P No. 200762 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This petition is filed seeking to quash the order of taking cognizance dated 16.11.2022 passed in C.C No.20127/2022 (Crime No.45/2022) by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 109 r/w 34 of IPC. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The petitioners are the in-laws of respondent No.2. It is the case of the prosecution that, respondent No.2 married accused No.1 on 31.05.2021. After the marriage, it is stated that accused No.1 started harassing respondent No.2 and insisted her to give divorce. It is further alleged that, he is having illicit relationship with other girls. In that context, there was a quarrel between respondent No.2 and accused No.1. Further, it is alleged that accused No.1 was demanding a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as a dowry. 3. On 27.02.2022, around 10.30 p.m., accused No.3 quarreled with respondent No.2 and intimidated her that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1603 CRL.P No. 200762 of 2024 he would kill her and further on 11.05.2022 around about 3.00 p.m., accused No.1 started quarreling with her stating that he had no amount to pay the rent, as such, he was insisting her that she should bring the amount to pay the rent in the form of dowry. 4. The respondent No.2 being aggrieved by the harassment meted out in her matrimonial home, lodges a complaint before the respondent - police. The respondent - police have registered FIR in Crime No.45/2022. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 5. Heard Sri.Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri.B.C.Jaka, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are the in-laws of respondent No.2. On reading of the entire averments of the complaint, except stating that they were provoking accused No.1 to harass respondent No.2, nothing has been stated against these petitioners. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1603 CRL.P No. 200762 of 2024 7. It is further submitted that when the allegations made against these petitioners are omnibus in nature and no specific overt-act has been attributed against the petitioners, continuing the criminal case against them would be an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the same has to be quashed. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition. 8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 vehemently submitted that there are allegations made against the petitioners that they were harassing respondent No.2 on one or the other pretext. When specific allegations are made out against the petitioners, it is not appropriate to consider the submissions of the petitioners. Therefore, the petition has to be rejected. Making such submissions, the learned HCGP for respondent No.1 prays to dismiss the petition. 9. Similarly, learned counsel for respondent No.2 adopted the arguments of learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and he prays to dismiss the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1603 CRL.P No. 200762 of 2024 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it appears from the record that respondent No.2 married accused No.1 on 31.05.2021. It is stated that she had been subjected to cruelty and harassment at the instance of the petitioners. However, the said allegations are omnibus in nature and there are no specific overt-act attributed against the petitioners. 11. It is further stated that, on 27.02.2022, around 10.30 p.m., her father-in-law threatened her stating that he would kill her. However, a complaint came to be registered on 20.05.2022. The delay in lodging the complaint, certainly, would affect the credibility of the incident. 12. On reading of the averments of the charge sheet, except bald and baseless allegations made against these petitioners, no specific incident had been narrated. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that even if the petitioners have been subjected to trial, the possibility of being convicted is bleak. Hence, it is not appropriate to continue the proceedings against the petitioners. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1603 CRL.P No. 200762 of 2024 13. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The order of taking cognizance dated 16.11.2022 passed in C.C No.20127/2022 (Crime No.45/2022) by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Kalaburagi, is quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RSP/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32 CT:PK