- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1794 CRL.P No. 201031 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201031 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. DR. NAGESH S/O MADHAV PAREKAR, AGE:36 YEARS, OCC: NEUROLOGY DOCTOR, R/O. H.NO. 729, NEW PACHA PETH, ASHOK CHOWK, SOLAPUR (M.S). 2. MADHAV S/O PUNDALIKRAO PAREKAR, AGE:65 YEARS, OCC: RETD. SERVICE, R/O H.NO. 729, NEW PACHA PETH, ASHOK CHOWK, SOLAPUR (M.S). 3. DR. SUNANDA W/O MADHAV PAREKAR, AGE:60 YEARS, OCC: RETD. LECTURER, R/O. H.NO. 729 NEW PACHA PETH, ASHOK CHOWK, SOLAPUR (M.S). 4. MAHESH S/O MADHAV PAREKAR, AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. H.NO. 729, NEW PACHA PETH, ASHOK CHOWK, SOLAPUR (M.S). 5. DR. ROOPA W/O SANDEEP AMBEKAR, AGE:60 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. DOCTOR, R/O. AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA STATE. 6. DR. SANDEEP S/O SITARAM AMBEKAR, AGE:45 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. DOCTOR, R/O. DATTAJI BHALE, BLOOD BANK, Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1794 CRL.P No. 201031 of 2022 HADGEWAR C/O DR. HADGEWAR, RUNGNALAYA CAMPUS NEAR GAJANAN MANDIR, JAWAHAR COLONY, ROAD, JHARKHEDA PRISIR, AURANGABAD (MAHARASHTRA). 7. DR. GEETA W/O AMEET SITAWAR, AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: GYNECOLOGIST, R/O. MAULI HOSPITAL, BEHIND D MART, TIRUMALA NAGAR, PARUNA ROAD, NANDED. 8. SRI DR. AMIT SITAWAR, AGE:55 YEARS OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. MAULI HOSPITAL, BEHIND D MART, TIRUMALA NAGAR, PARUNA ROAD, NANDED-431605. 9. SRI DR. SONALI W/O VISHAL MAINDARKAR, AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. BARLOG HOSPITAL, MITRA NAGAR, BEHIND L.G. SHOWROOM, LATUR (M H)-413512. 10 SRI DR. VISHAL S/O VIJAY MAINARKAR, AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. BARLOG HOSPITAL, MITRA NAGAR, BEHIND L.G. SHOWROOM, LATUR (M H)-413512. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ARUN CHOUDAPURKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. AMEETHA W/O NAGESH PAREKAR, D/O MANOHAR DOIJODE, AGE:30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. H.NO. 729 NEW PACHA PETH, ASHOK CHOWK, SOLAPUR, NOW AT, PARENTAL HOUSE NO. 3-122-1, PUTANI GALLI, HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1794 CRL.P No. 201031 of 2022 2. ADDYANT S/O NAGESH PAREKAR, AGE:1 YEARS, U/G OF REAL MOTHER, R/O. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR. U/G RESPONDENT NO.1. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.S. SAJJANSHETTY AND SMT. SHIVALEELA S.S., ADVOCATES) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 10 IN D.V.C.NO.568/2022 (CRI.MISC.NO.568/22 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HUMNABAD, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. AND TO GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF WHICH THE HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) The petitioners are the husband and in-laws of respondent No.1. The petitioners are seeking quashing of the proceedings in DVC No.568/2022, pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Humnabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner No.1 married to respondent No.1 on 01.02.2019 at Humnabad, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1794 CRL.P No. 201031 of 2022 Bidar district. After the marriage, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 were living together in the same house and she has spent happy life for some time. After two to three months, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister- in-laws started ill-treating her by saying that she should bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs in cash etc. It is further stated that petitioner No.1 used to come to the house by consuming alcohol and was beating and abusing respondent No.1 in filthy language. 3. It is further stated that, respondent No.1 had been subjected to ill-treatment in her matrimonial house and being unable to tolerate the same, she came back to her parents’ house on 12.04.2019. When respondent No.1 left her matrimonial house, she was pregnant and on 06.01.2020, she gave birth to a male child. After giving birth to a male child, none of the family members of petitioner No.1 have visited respondent No.1 to lookafter the child. Therefore, she filed a petition before the Trial Court under the provisions of the Protection of Women - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1794 CRL.P No. 201031 of 2022 from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘D.V.Act’). Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court to quash the said proceedings. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Arun Choudapurkar and the learned counsel Sri S.S.Sajjanshetty for the respondents. 5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that though respondent No.1 made several allegations against the petitioners, petitioner No.1 being a husband of course has to maintain the respondent No.1, but she has made baseless and bald allegations against other petitioners that they were harassing her in one or the other pretext. There are no specific allegations as against petitioner Nos.2 to 10. If the impugned proceedings are allowed to be continued as against them, it would be an abuse of process of law. Moreover, the impugned proceedings have been registered only to harass the petitioners. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1794 CRL.P No. 201031 of 2022 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that respondent No.1 being a wife of petitioner No.1 had suffered cruelty both mentally and physically at her matrimonial house. The D.V.Act has been enacted for the purpose of protecting the woman from cruelty and harassment, as stipulated under Section 3 of the D.V.Act. As such, the learned counsel for the respondents prays to reject the petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint filed before the Magistrate, it appears from the records that though several allegations have been made against petitioner Nos.2 to 10, the fact remains that the said allegations are omnibus in nature. In fact, the respondent No.1 had not lodged any complaint before the jurisdictional police to take necessary action against them. Moreover, the prayer of the petitioners may have to be considered as against petitioner No.1, who is her husband in DVC No.568/2022. Allowing the petitioner Nos.2 to 10 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1794 CRL.P No. 201031 of 2022 to appear before the Trial Court, in my considered view, would amounts to an abuse of process of law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed in part. ii. The entire proceedings in DVC No.568/2022, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Humnabad, insofar as petitioner Nos.2 to 10, stands quashed. iii. The petition filed by petitioner No.1 stands rejected. iv. Liberty is reserved to the Trial Court to proceed against petitioner No.1/accused No.1, in accordance with law. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57 CT:PK