- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2093 CRL.P No. 201073 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201073 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SANJU S/O CHANDU RATHOD, AGE:51 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 2. RAJU S/O CHANDU RATHOD, AGE:41 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 3. SMT. ANITA W/O SANJU RATHOD, AGE:36 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 4. SMT. JYOTHI W/O RAJU RATHOD, AGE:31 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, ALL THE ABOVE PETITIONERS ARE R/O. SHIVAJI NAGAR PANEGAO TANDA, TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NEAR POWER HOUSE, HANUMAN NAGAR BADLAPUR, MUMBAI WEST-400089. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAVI BHEEMSINGH CHAWAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH WOMEN PS KALABURAGI CITY, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2093 CRL.P No. 201073 of 2024 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585103. 2. SMT. NIKHITA W/O ANIL RATHOD, AGE:24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SHIVAJI NAGAR PANEGAO TANDA, TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. B.K.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), U/S 528 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.4568 OF 2023 IN CRIME NO.21/2023 VIDE FIR NO.437 OF 2023 OF WOMEN POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KALABURAGI DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioners / accused Nos.2 to 5 are before this Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.4568/2023 arising out of Crime No.21/2023 vide FIR No.437/2023 of Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2093 CRL.P No. 201073 of 2024 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The respondent No.2 married accused No.1 on 27.11.2020. At the time of marriage, gold ornaments, one motorcycle, cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and household utensils worth Rs.3,00,000/- were given as dowry. After the marriage, she started residing with her in-laws in her matrimonial home. She was taken nice care of by her in- laws for a period of one month. Thereafter, they started quarreling with the respondent No.2 by stating that, she was not able to cook properly and also demanding additional dowry in the form of cash and gold. The said fact was made known to CWs.4 and 5. CWs.4 and 5 went to the house of the accused and instructed them to take care of the respondent No.2 properly. The accused persons were taking care of her nicely for a shorter period. Thereafter, accused No.1 and respondent No.2 went to Bombay for their livelihood. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2093 CRL.P No. 201073 of 2024 3. It is further stated that, the respondent No.2 was having stomach pain often when she was staying at Bombay along with her husband. The accused No.1 instead of getting her treated, he insisted her to go to her native for the treatment. Respondent No.2 returned to her parents' house. Her parents after got her treated, sent her back to her husband. 4. It is further stated that, all these petitioners went to Bombay and stated to have assaulted and abused respondent No.2 in a filthy language. Respondent No.2 narrated the incident in such a manner that, accused No.1 is stated to have assaulted her with his hands and also kicked her on the stomach. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are stated to have insulted and abused by using filthy language. Accused No.4 is stated to have abused, pulled the tuft and kicked her on the stomach. Accused No.5 is stated to have assaulted on the back of the respondent No.2 with her hands. Being aggrieved by the said act of these petitioners, the respondent No.2 lodges a complaint on 23.02.2023. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2093 CRL.P No. 201073 of 2024 5. Based on the complaint, the respondent - police have registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2023. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 6. Heard Sri Ravi Bheemsingh Chawan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri B.K. Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the petitioners are the in-laws of respondent No.2. They are innocent of the alleged offences. In fact, the petitioners were residing separately from respondent No.2. In the complaint, it is admitted that the respondent No.2 and accused No.1 were residing separately at Maharashtra. 8. It is further submitted that, even though the alleged incident had taken place on 15.09.2022, the fact remains that, the complaint has been lodged on 23.02.2023, which is beyond five months. The said delay has not been explained properly. The respondent No.2, in order to implicate these petitioners in a false case, made baseless and false allegations. The petitioners are the residents of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2093 CRL.P No. 201073 of 2024 Shivaji Nagar, Panegon Tanda, Kalaburagi. However, respondent No.2 was residing at Maharashtra. Therefore, the petition has to be allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners are required to be quashed. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition. 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the said submissions and he further submitted that, the overt act of each accused has been explained by the complainant and the same has been narrated in the charge sheet. When the materials are available on record to proceed with the case or to frame the charge, quashing the proceedings would definitely cause injustice to the complainant. 10. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again, reiterated that, to frame the charge, the Court has to see only the prima facie case, not to conduct a mini-trial. 11. It is further submitted that, the respondent No.2 has categorically stated about the harassment of which she - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2093 CRL.P No. 201073 of 2024 had been subjected in her matrimonial home and lodges a complaint in that regard. The Investigating Officer conducted a detailed investigation and submitted the charge sheet holding that there are materials to proceed against the petitioners and therefore, the averments of the charge sheet have to be sustained and the petitioners are required to face trial, for better adjudication. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 prays to reject the petition. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 adopted the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader and prays to reject the petition. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court in respect of charge sheet, before adverting to the merits of the case, it is appropriate to highlight the proposition of law on this aspect. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR ALIAS SONAM AND OTHERS v. STATE OF - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2093 CRL.P No. 201073 of 2024 BIHAR AND OTHERS1 held in paragraph Nos.13, 14 and 16, which reads as under: “13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4) “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 1 (2022) 6 SCC 599 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2093 CRL.P No. 201073 of 2024 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36) “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498- AIPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498- A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2093 CRL.P No. 201073 of 2024 members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2093 CRL.P No. 201073 of 2024 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6) “6. … The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 15. On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that the allegations of harassment of the husband's close relations, who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would have an entirely different - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2093 CRL.P No. 201073 of 2024 complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. It is further held that the relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations, unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. 16. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the respondent No.2, being the complainant, was residing away from the house of these petitioners two years ago and they were residing at Bombay separately. Even though the alleged incident of assault and demand of dowry is stated to have taken place on 15.09.2022 at Bombay, Maharashtra, the fact remains that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 23.02.2023. The said delay has not been explained properly, which denotes the animus intention to implicate the petitioners in a false case. Therefore, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a case to quash the proceedings. 17. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:- - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2093 CRL.P No. 201073 of 2024 ORDER i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The entire proceedings in C.C. No.4568/2023 arising out of Crime No.21/2023 vide FIR No.437/2023 of Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, against these petitioners / accused Nos.2 to 5, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SRT, Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62 CT:PK