- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2898 CRL.P No. 200180 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200180 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MALAPPA S/O SIDDARAMAPPA KANNOLLI AGE 36 YEARS OCC: COOLIE WORK R/O NELOGI TQ. JEWARGI DIST. KALABURAGI 3 585 310 2. SMT. YALLAMMA W/O SIDDARAMAPPA KANNOLLI AGE 65 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O NELOGI TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI 3 585 310 3. SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O MAHADEVAPPA AGE 33 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O KHANAUR TQ. AND DIST. YADGIR 3 585 201 4. SMT. BHAGAMMA W/O SHRISHAIL SONNAD AGE 36 YEARS Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2898 CRL.P No. 200180 of 2025 OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O CHANDKAVATHE, TQ. SINDAGI DIST.VIJAYAPUR 3 586 128 &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANNARAYA, ADVOCATE AND SRI. S. B. SANGOLAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH POLICE NELOGI POLICE STATION R/BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH 3 585103 2. BHAGYASHREE W/O MALAPPA KANNOLI AGE 25 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O KALLAHANGARAGA TQ. JEWARGI DIST. KALABURAGI 3 585303 & RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAHABUDDIN JAMADAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. B. BHIMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD) U/SEC 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO, a) QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF FIR IN CRIME NO.178/2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 / NELOGI POLICE STATION, DIST KALABURAGI DATED 24.11.2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961 U/SEC 3 AND 4 AND BNS 2023 ACT U/SEC 115(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 49, 85 INSOFAR AS PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4 ARE CONCERNED (PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JEWARGI, DISTRICT KALABURAGI). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2898 CRL.P No. 200180 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking for quashing the registration of FIR in Crime No.178/2024 registered by the respondent No.1 3 Police, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 115(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 49, 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 8BNS9) insofar as petitioners / accused Nos.1 to 4 are concerned (pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Jewargi, Kalaburagi district). Factual matrix of the case: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that, the complainant has lodged a complaint on 24.11.2024 around 06.00 p.m., stating that her marriage was solemnized on 13.05.2018 with accused No.1. At the time of marriage, her father had given gold ornaments of 11 tholas and also performed the marriage by spending the amount. After the marriage, she was staying along with the family - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2898 CRL.P No. 200180 of 2025 members in her matrimonial home. It is further stated that, her sister-in-laws used to visit the house often and were instigating the family members that the respondent No.2 did not bring sufficient dowry by way of gold etc., After they went from the house, the rest of the inmates used to harass the respondent No.2 for not having brought sufficient dowry in the form of gold. In fact, she had informed the said cruelty and harassment to her parents. 3. It is further stated that, the respondent No.2 was being harassed for not bringing sufficient utensils and household articles. Consequently, a panchayath was held and it was advised to set right the issue and proceed further in the matrimonial life. Therefore, she did not lodge a complaint at the earliest. 4. On 06.01.2024, around 04.30 p.m., respondent No.2 and her father went to Nelogi Village. At that time, her mother-in-law and her husband were there in the house. After seeing them, both her husband and mother-in-law came outside and locked the house from outside and sat in front of the house. In spite of repeated requests made - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2898 CRL.P No. 200180 of 2025 to both of them to give the key, they did not give the same and they also threatened the respondent No.2 that they would not allow her inside the house as she did not bring enough gold as dowry. 5. It is further stated that, her husband had taken mangala sutra, necklace, ear studs and bracelet from respondent No.2 and threw her from the matrimonial home. On the following day, she visited the hospital and subjected herself for medical examination. In the said examination, it was revealed that, she was pregnant of 3 months. Thereafter, she stayed in her parents9 house and gave birth to a baby boy. Even after she delivered the baby, her husband did not turn up towards her house to see the child. 6. On 19.08.2024, around 11.00 a.m., her husband Malappa s/o. Sidramappa visited her house and scolded her that she did not bring additional dowry and went away from the said place without taking her back to her matrimonial home. Hence, she lodged a complaint against all the family members to take suitable action against them on 24.11.2024. The respondent No.1 - police after - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2898 CRL.P No. 200180 of 2025 registering the case, conducted investigation. The investigation is under progress. The petitioners who are husband, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of respondent No.2, are before this Court seeking for quashing of entire proceedings as there are no allegations. 7. Heard Sri Annaraya and Sri S.B. Sangolagi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shahabuddin Jamadar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri B. Bhimashankar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was a difference of opinion between respondent No.2 and accused No.1 in the matrimonial issues. In spite of repeated requests made to respondent No.2 to restore her matrimonial life, she refused to return to matrimonial home and stay with accused No.1. Being frustrated by the act of respondent No.2 in not joining the matrimonial life, the petitioner No.1 filed a petition in M.C.No.34/2024 seeking for divorce on 24.10.2024 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Jewargi. Thereafter, the present complaint came to be registered - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2898 CRL.P No. 200180 of 2025 on 24.11.2024, after a lapse of one month from the date of filing the petition for divorce. Therefore, the petition has to be allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.178/2024 of respondent No.1 3 police has 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 justified registration of the FIR and he further submitted that the petitioners, being the husband and the in-laws of the respondent No.2, started harassing respondent No.2 on one or other pretext and used to demand additional dowry in the form of cash and gold. When it was denied, they filed a divorce petition seeking for divorce, which is not maintainable. Therefore, the FIR has to be maintained and investigation has to be conducted on the basis of the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2. Hence, at this stage, the FIR cannot be quashed. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 prays to reject the petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2898 CRL.P No. 200180 of 2025 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 adopted the submissions of learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and prays for rejection of the petition. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it appears from the record that the petitioner No.1 being a husband, had filed a petition for decree for divorce on 24.10.2024, contending inter alia that the respondent No.2, after she went to her parents9 house for post-natal care, did not come to matrimonial home even though the petitioner No.1 visited and requested her to join the matrimonial home. 12. The petitioner No.1, being aggrieved by the act of the respondent No.2 in not joining the matrimonial home, he had filed a petition seeking for divorce. The act of respondent No.2 in filing a complaint after receiving the notice for divorce from the Court appears to be improper and not justifiable. 13. It is relevant at this stage to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KAHKASHAN - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2898 CRL.P No. 200180 of 2025 KAUSAR @ SONAM & Others v. STATE OF BIHAR & Others1, para No.14 reads as under: <14. Further in 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-A IPC 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 1 (2022) 6 SCC 599 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2898 CRL.P No. 200180 of 2025 human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquility 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 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 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2898 CRL.P No. 200180 of 2025 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.= 14. On careful reading of the above cited judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is a phenomenal increase in the matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 492A of IPC was introduced with the avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. Nowadays, the said provision has been misused by the disgruntled wives. 15. Having considered the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra, in the present case, the respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint after a lapse of several months and also after receiving the notice from the petitioner No.1, which is purely for the purpose of harassing the petitioners. Therefore, this is a fit case to - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2898 CRL.P No. 200180 of 2025 quash the proceedings by exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 16. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The registration of FIR in Crime No.178/2024 registered by the respondent No.1 3 Police, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 115(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 49, 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, insofar as petitioners / accused Nos.1 to 4 are concerned (pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Jewargi, Kalaburagi district) is hereby quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2