- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2095 CRL.P No. 201625 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. 201625 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SUNIL S/O UDDAVARAV PISKE, AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TALMOD, TQ. UMARGA DIST. OSMANABAD STATE MAHARASHTRA-413606. 2. RAJU @ RAJENDRA S/O UDDAVARAV PISKE, AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TALMOD TQ. UMARGA DIST. OSMANABAD, STATE MAHARASHTRA -413606. 3. AMAR S/O UDDAVARAV PISKE, AGE:45 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O. TALMOD TQ. UMARGA DIST. OSMANABAD, STATE MAHARASHTRA-413606. 4. LAXMI W/O RAJU @ RAJENDRA PISKE, AGE:45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O. TALMOD TQ. UMARGA DIST. OSMANABAD, STATE MAHARASHTRA-413606. 5. SADHANA W/O AMAR PISKE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O. TALMOD TQ. UMARGA DIST. OSMANABAD, STATE MAHARASHTRA-413606. 6. NIRAMALA W/O SUNIL PISKE, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD. Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2095 CRL.P No. 201625 of 2024 R/O. TALMOD, TQ. UMARGA DIST. OSMANABAD, STATE MAHARASHTRA-413606. 7. DEEPA W/O SACHIN KAMBLE, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O. 138 N.G MILL CHAWAL MURARJI VTC, SOLAPUR NORTH SOLAPUR, STATE MAHARASHTRA. 8. UDDAVARAV S/O SHANKARARAV PISKE, AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TALMOD, TQ. UMARGA DIST. OSMANABAD, STATE MAHARASHTRA-413606. 9. SACHIN S/O ANILKUMAR KAMBLE, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O. 138 N.G MILL CHAWAL MURARJI VTC SOLAPUR, NORTH SOLAPUR STATE MAHARASHTRA-413001. 10. PRAKESH S/O DONGARAO, AGE:46 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O. DONAGARGAON, KALABURGI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAVI BHEEMSINGH CHAWAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE THROUGH, KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI, (REPRESENTING BY LEARNED ADDL. S.P.P, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT KALABURAGI-585105). 2. SHRUTI W/O ANIL PISKE, AGE:26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. TALMODA, TQ. UMARGA, DIST. USMANABAD, MAHARASHTRA-413606, NOW AT PRESENT, BEHIND LAKSHMI TEMPLE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2095 CRL.P No. 201625 of 2024 BAMBO BAZAR, KALABURAGI CITY, TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), U/S 528 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 6989 OF 2024 (IN CRIME NO. 32/2024) OF KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN PS PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE IST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JFMC KALABURAGI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 498(A), 323, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC SEC. 3 AND 9 DP ACT, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. 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 are before this Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.6989/2024 arising out of Crime No.32/2024 of Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 149 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. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2095 CRL.P No. 201625 of 2024 Factual matrix of the case: 2. It is the case of prosecution that the respondent No.2 married accused No.1 on 14.05.2022. It is alleged that, at the time of marriage, she was made to believe that accused No.1 was a Government employee. However, she learnt after the marriage that, accused No.1 was working in a private company. On 19.08.2023, when the mother and aunt of respondent No.2 went to the house of accused No.1 and asked about the false promise and statement regarding the Government job of accused No.1, all the family members were stated quarrelling with them and also assaulted and abused both her mother and aunt. On 30.12.2023, at about 01.00 p.m., accused No.1 and others went to the house of respondent No.2 and started abusing and assaulting her by saying that she should give consent for divorce for the second marriage of accused No.1. By the time, all the family members have pacified the matter. Being aggrieved by the act of the petitioners, she approached the respondent - police and lodged a complaint on 09.03.2024. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2095 CRL.P No. 201625 of 2024 3. Based on the complaint, the respondent - police have registered a case in Crime No.32/2024. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 4. Heard Sri Ravi Bheemsingh Chawan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the petitioners are though appears to be the relatives of accused No.1, they are all distant relatives and they were residing separately from respondent No.2 and accused No.1. Even assuming that these petitioners are coming within the purview of definition of the term ‘relatives’, as envisaged under Section 498A IPC, the fact remains that they are all residing separately from the respondent No.2. 6. It is further submitted that, the allegations made against the petitioners are baseless and bald. Hence, it cannot be presumed that the petitioners have committed the offence, as stated in the complaint. Even on reading the entire averments of the complaint, there are no sufficient materials available on record to conclude that, the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2095 CRL.P No. 201625 of 2024 petitioners have harassed, assaulted and committed cruelty on the respondent No.2. Even assuming that, the petitioners have assaulted respondent No.2 on 30.12.2023, the fact remains that, she lodged the complaint on 09.03.2024. The delay in lodging the complaint has not been explained properly. The said delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution. On the basis of the averments of the charge sheet, even if these petitioners are asked to face the trial, there is no possibility of conviction. Therefore, the proceedings against these petitioners are required to be quashed. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the said submissions and he further submitted that the overt act of the 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. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2095 CRL.P No. 201625 of 2024 8. 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. Further, it held that, the Court need not conduct mini-trial etc., 9. It is further submitted that, the respondent No.2 has categorically stated about the harassment of which she had been subjected to 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 prays to reject the petition. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court in filing the charge sheet, before adverting to the merits of the case, it is appropriate to highlight the proposition of law on this aspect. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2095 CRL.P No. 201625 of 2024 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR ALIAS SONAM AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 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.” 1 (2022) 6 SCC 599 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2095 CRL.P No. 201625 of 2024 14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 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 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2095 CRL.P No. 201625 of 2024 their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The 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 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2095 CRL.P No. 201625 of 2024 complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 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.” 12. On reading of the above said judgment, it makes it clear that, making vague and generalized allegations in the matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2095 CRL.P No. 201625 of 2024 misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and / or her family. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that initiation of the case against the husband and his family has to be considered, leniently, if, the allegations are omnibus in nature. 13. Having considered the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the present case, the respondent No.2 made certain allegations against the petitioners who are her in-laws, however, the said allegations are omnibus in nature and there is no specific overt act attributed against them. Under such an event, even if the petitioners are allowed to face the trial, the possibility of being convicted is remote. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that, the proceedings as against the petitioners is to be quashed. 14. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The entire proceedings in C.C. No.6989/2024 arising out of Crime - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2095 CRL.P No. 201625 of 2024 No.32/2024 of Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 149 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, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SRT/Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64 CT:PK