- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3569 CRL.P No. 100361 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100361 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SANDEEP S/O. SHIVAPPA KAKHANDAKI AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. ALGUR VILLAGE-587301, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 2. KASTURI W/O. SHIVAPPA KHAKHANDAKI AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. ALAGUR VILLAGE, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301. 3. SHIVAPPA S/O. IRASANGAPPA KHAKHANDAKI AGE. 76 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALAGUR VILLAGE, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301. 4. PRADEEP S/O. SHIVAPPA KHAKHANDAKI AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALAGUR VILLAGE, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301. 5. SIDDAPPA S/O. SHANKREPPA BOMMANAVAR (NAMED AS SUBHASH BOMMANVAR IN THE CHARGE SHEET), AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAGANUR VILLAGE, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-591304. 6. DANAMMA W/O. SHIVANAND SHAMANNAVAR (NAMED AS BEBI SHAMANNAVAR IN THE CHARGESHEET), AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MADHABAVI VILLAGE, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591304. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.25 18:00:15 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3569 CRL.P No. 100361 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHILA POLICE STATION BELAGAVI, R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. 2. SMT. LAXMI W/O. SANDEEP KAKHANDAKI AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, C/O. RAJASHEKAHAR S/O. BASAVARAJ MARIHAL, R/O. PLOT NO.141, 1ST STOP, RAMATHIRTH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. MAHANTESH S.HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH ALL THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC-II BELAGAVI, IN CC NO. 232/2019 INITIATED IN PURSUANCE TO MAHILA POLICE CRIME NO. 63/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 6 ARE CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners, who have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that accused No.1 is the husband, accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law, accused No.4 is the brother-in-law, and accused Nos.5 and 6 are relatives. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3569 CRL.P No. 100361 of 2025 They allegedly subjected the de facto complainant to both mental and physical cruelty and also demanded money from her parental home. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an earlier complaint was filed by respondent No.2, which was closed by the police, stating that the dispute between the parties pertained to residence. Thereafter, as an afterthought, respondent No.2 lodged the present First Information Report, making omnibus and general allegations solely to wreak vengeance with a revengeful intent. 4. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the allegations in the complaint and charge sheet materials clearly disclose specific overt acts by each of the accused, detailing how and in what manner they subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty. Therefore, the veracity of the allegations can only be considered at the time of trial and cannot be scrutinized at this stage. He, therefore, sought the dismissal of this petition. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the respondent-State reiterated the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.2. 6. The marriage between accused No.1 and the de facto complainant was solemnized on 30.05.2014, and they have a female child from the wedlock. Accused No.1 resides with his parents in Alguru Village. The de facto complainant had previously - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3569 CRL.P No. 100361 of 2025 filed a complaint making similar allegations. She had also filed a complaint before the Family Counseling Centre, stating that she had been residing separately for the past 7–8 months. 7. Due to incompatibility between the de facto complainant and accused No.1, as well as his parents-in-law, counseling was conducted, and a report was submitted stating that the complainant intended to continue her matrimonial life in Jamkhandi and not in Aloor Village. Accused No.1 agreed to reside separately with the de facto complainant, to which she also initially agreed. 8. However, accused No.1 did not agree to the conditions imposed by the de facto complainant for residing separately. Consequently, the complaint was closed, stating that there was no mutual understanding between the parties. The said complaint was closed on 06.08.2018, while the impugned FIR was lodged later, on 03.11.2018. 9. A perusal of the complaint indicates that, except for omnibus and general allegations, there are no specific overt acts attributed to each accused, detailing how and in what manner they subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty. The dispute between the parties arises from a marital conflict between accused No.1 and the de facto complainant but has been given a criminal texture to wreak vengeance with a revengeful intent. In light of this, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3569 CRL.P No. 100361 of 2025 ORDER i. Accordingly, petition is allowed. ii. The impugned proceeding in C.C.No.232/2019 on the file of JMFC II Belagavi, is hereby quashed. However this order shall not come in the way of the defacto complainant claiming maintenance from the accused No.1 in accordance with law. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14