- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:433 CRL.P No. 100843 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100843 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. BHAVANI W/O KACHARLA GOPALA KRISHNA, AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: RAJMANDRI GODAVARI EAST, KAKINADA, ANDRA PRADESH-533 001. 2. GOPALA KRISHNA S/O SUBRAMANYAM, AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: RAJMANDRI GODAVRI EAST, KAKINADA, ANDRA PRADESH-533 001. … PETITIONERS (BY SMT. RUKMINI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH WOMEN POLICE STATION, BALLARI-580 011. 2. SMT. AMBIKA G. W/O GANESHKOTTA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: 1ST CROSS, BALAJI COLONY, TALUR ROAD, BALLARI-583 105. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. MANJUNATH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.15 11:08:45 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:433 CRL.P No. 100843 of 2022 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.319/2020 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT, IN SO FAR PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION IS 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, accused Nos. 2 and 3, are facing charges for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. They have approached this Court seeking relief. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant is the legally wedded wife of accused No. 1, with their marriage solemnized in 2016. Accused No. 2 is the sister-in-law, and accused No. 3 is the husband of accused No. 2. After the marriage, the complainant and accused No. 1 resided in their matrimonial home in Hyderabad, where accused No. 1 allegedly subjected the complainant to both mental and physical cruelty and demanded money from her parental home. The petitioners allegedly visited the matrimonial home in Hyderabad, abused the complainant in filthy language, subjected her to cruelty, claimed - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:433 CRL.P No. 100843 of 2022 she was unsuitable as a wife for accused No. 1, and asked her to leave the house. Aggrieved, this petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners reside separately in Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh, and, apart from one alleged incident, there is no corroborative evidence of them subjecting the complainant to cruelty. She further contended that the second respondent had previously filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police, which was closed after accused No. 1 refused to reconcile. The counsel argued that the allegations are baseless, arising from a marital dispute between accused No. 1 and the complainant, and have been falsely framed with a criminal angle to harass the petitioners. 4. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No. 1-State and the counsel for respondent No. 2 argued that the charge sheet discloses the commission of offences alleged against the petitioners. They contended that the veracity of the allegations should be examined during the trial and sought dismissal of the petition. 5. The arguments of the learned counsel for both parties have been duly considered. 6. A perusal of the charge sheet material indicates that accused No. 1 and the complainant resided separately in their matrimonial home in Hyderabad, while the petitioners live in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:433 CRL.P No. 100843 of 2022 Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh. Apart from one alleged incident where the petitioners visited Hyderabad and subjected the complainant to cruelty, there are no continuous allegations of mental or physical abuse by them. It is also undisputed that an earlier complaint filed by the complainant against accused No. 1 was closed as a non-cognizable report after he refused to reconcile. 7. Furthermore, the complainant has filed a petition for the dissolution of her marriage with accused No. 1, which was granted ex parte, resulting in a decree dissolving the marriage. 8. The allegations against accused Nos. 2 and 3 arise out of a marital dispute between accused No. 1 and the complainant and appear to have been given a criminal dimension to harass the petitioners. 9. Therefore, the continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following order: ORDER i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. ii) The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.319/2020 pending on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge & - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:433 CRL.P No. 100843 of 2022 JMFC, Ballari, insofar as it relates to accused Nos.2 and 3, the petitioners herein, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 64