- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1190 CRL.P No. 201422 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201422 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. PUSHPA, W/O VAIJANATH KARANJE, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O VITHAL NAGAR, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, KALABURAGI, TALUK AND DISTRICT: KALABURAGI. 2. VAIJANATH, S/O ANNAPPA KARANJE, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O VITHAL NAGAR, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, KALABURAGI, TALUK AND DISTRICT: KALABURAGI. 3. NIVEDITA, D/O VAIJANATH KARANJE, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: ASST. PROFESSOR, R/O VITHAL NAGAR, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, KALABURAGI, TALUK AND DISTRICT: KALABURAGI. 4. DIVYADEEPA, D/O JAGANATH PATI,L Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1190 CRL.P No. 201422 of 2022 AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER, R/O VITHAL NAGAR, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, KALABURAGI, TALUK AND DISTRICT: KALABURAGI. 5. SNEHALATA, W/O DR. SANTOSH PALEKAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O YENAGOND MEHABBOB NAGAR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE. 6. VIVEK, S/O VAIJANATH KARANJE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER, R/O VITHAL NAGAR, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, KALABURAGI, TALUK AND DISTRICT: KALABURAGI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ASHOK MULAGE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE THROUGH SEDAM POLICE STATION, TALUK: SEDAM, DISTRICT: KALABURAGI, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107. 2. DR. PALLAVI, W/O VIVEK KARANJE AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O VITHAL NAGAR, KALABURAGI, NOW RESIDING AT C/O RAJASHEKAR NEELANGI, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1190 CRL.P No. 201422 of 2022 NEELANGI SARI CENTRE, KIRANA BAZAR, SEDAM, TALUK: SEDAM DISTRICT: KALABURAGI-585 107. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.B.YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SHIVANAND V. PATANASHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 08.12.2021 AND QUASH THE FIR, COMPLAINT AND ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.117/2021 OF SEDAM POLICE STATION, TALUK-SEDAM, DISTRICT-KALABURAGI, PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC, SEDAM, IN C.C.NO.2174/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 323, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the order of taking cognizance dated 08.12.2021 and to quash the FIR, complaint and the entire charge-sheet in Crime No.117/2021 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1190 CRL.P No. 201422 of 2022 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court the complaint given by the complainant, wherein it is specifically stated that her husband is very good, but her in-laws, sister-in-law, mother-in-law’s sister’s daughter and Snehalatha subjected her for cruelty. The learned counsel contend that even against the father-in- law also there is no specific allegation and only an omnibus allegation is made against the petitioners. The learned counsel contend that during the course of investigation also nothing is found against the petitioners. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court column No.17 of the charge-sheet and contend that while filing the charge-sheet, no specific allegations are made against the father-in-law, husband and accused No.5. Hence, it is nothing but an abuse of process. 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State would contend that in the complaint allegations are made. The learned counsel - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1190 CRL.P No. 201422 of 2022 contend that in all, 12 pages of complaint was given specifically making allegations against the petitioners and during the course of investigation, statement of witnesses are also recorded. 5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that even though no specific allegations are made in the complaint, but there are allegations against all of them. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and taking note of the contents of the complaint given by the complainant, while lodging the detailed complaint of 12 pages, she has categorically stated that her husband is good, but during the course of investigation husband is also added as accused No.6. As against accused No.5 also, having considered the material and statement of witnesses, no specific allegations are made. However, specific allegations are made against the father-in- law with regard to the demand and negotiations at the time of marriage. Having considered the material collected by the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1190 CRL.P No. 201422 of 2022 Investigating Officer, only an omnibus allegation is made against accused No.5 and no specific allegations. Though charge-sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the ingredients of these offences does not attract against the husband, who has been arraigned as accused No.6 at the time of filing of charge-sheet and in the very complaint, the complainant has spoken good words about the husband. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that already divorce has been granted on the ground of cruelty. While facing the criminal trial, there must be material or otherwise it amounts to an abuse of process and hence it is a good case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in respect of accused No.5 Snehalatha and accused No.6, who is the husband of the complainant. Insofar as other accused persons are concerned, there are specific allegations against them invoking Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1190 CRL.P No. 201422 of 2022 ORDER (i) The petition is allowed in part. (ii) The proceedings initiated against accused Nos.5 and 6 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD Sl No.: 2