- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2094 CRL.P No. 200008 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200008 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. LALITABAI W/O DASHARATH BANASODE (WADI), AGE:57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. PRAGATI COLONY, NEAR CO-OPERATIVE TRAINING CENTRE, KALABURAGI–585105. 2. DR. ABHIJIT S/O DASHARATH WADI, AGE:30 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. H.NO.2/911/9/1/33, SHAHABAD ROAD, NEAR AMATHESHWAR NAGAR, RAJAPUR KALABURAGI – 585 105 NOW R/O. AT MUMBAI. 3. DR. TEJASWINI W/O PRADEEP, AGE:33 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. H.NO.1.2.49, GROUND FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, 5TH MAIN, MANAS NAGAR, NAGARBAVI 1ST MAIN BENGALURU. 4. NAGAPPA S/O MALLAPPA SHRIMAAN, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: RETD EMPLOYEE, R/O. SY NO.606/3.4.7, PLOT NO.79 GEETA NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585106. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI MAHANTESH H. DESAI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2094 CRL.P No. 200008 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH MAHILA P S KALABURAGI CITY REP. BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH KALABURAGI–585 102 2. SMT. SHRUTI W/O RAKESH ALIAS JAYRAJ BANSODE AGE:28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O. ITTANGI BHATTI AREA, SHAHABAD ROAD, SHAKTI NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585 105 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; SRI ANNARAYA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), U/S 528 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION BY QUASHING THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 30-10-2024 OF THE OFFENCES U/S 498(A), 323, 324, 504, 506 R/W 34 IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CR NO.11700/2024 OF MAHILA POLICE STATION KALABURAGI CITY AND FURTHER CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KALABURAGI IN CC NO.11700/2024. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2094 CRL.P No. 200008 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) Petitioners No. 1 to 4 being accused Nos. 2 to 5, approached this Court seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings pending in Crime No.139/2023 of Kalaburagi City Women police station, Kalaburagi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. Factual matrix of the case are that: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that respondent No.2 – Smt. Shruti married Rakesh who is accused No.1 on 22.05.2022 at Kalaburagi. At the time of marriage, it is stated that they had given dowry in the form of gold, cash and also furnitures. It is further stated that the father-in-law of respondent No.2 died on 10.02.2023. Thereafter, on 11.02.2023 around 10.00 p.m., her husband who is accused No.1 came to the house by consuming alcohol and assaulted her saying that he lost his father as soon as she entered his house. Even her mother-in-law also scolded in a similar manner. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2094 CRL.P No. 200008 of 2025 3. It is further stated that the family members of respondent No.2 were not taking proper care of respondent No.2 and she had been subjected to cruelty on one or the other pretext. 4. It is further stated that on 05.08.2023, she had been to the house of her husband around 5.30 p.m. By that time, her husband, mother-in-law and Nagappa who is the relative of her husband, assaulted her indiscriminately, scolded her and driven her out from the house. Consequently, she lodges a complaint against the family members of her husband. 5. Based on the complaint, the respondent police have registered a case against the petitioners in Crime No.139/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and the investigation is under progress. 6. Heard Sri. Mahantesh H Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Gopal Kirshna Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. Annaraya M Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners No.2, 4 and 5 are the in-laws of respondent - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2094 CRL.P No. 200008 of 2025 No.2. Accused No.4 – Smt. Tejaswini married to one Dr. Pradeep on 26.11.2017 and she is residing at Davangere. Accused No.3 completed P.G. Course in M.S. Orthopedics in S. Nijalingappa Medical College and he was appointed as PG/Jr. resident from August, 2022 to November, 2022 and staying at Gadag. Initially, he worked as a senior resident at Belgaum institute of medical sciences and now, he is working as spine surgery fellow in Mumbai. Accused No.5 is the brother of accused No.2 and he is retired government employee and he is living separately with his wife and children for the past 20 years. 8. It is further submitted that all the allegations made against the petitioners are baseless and bald. They have been falsely implicated in this case by misusing the provision under section 498(A) of IPC. Therefore, the petition has to be allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners has to be quashed. 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 vehemently justified the filing of complaint and registration of FIR and he stated that there are allegations made against accused Nos. 2 and 5. The cruelty of which - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2094 CRL.P No. 200008 of 2025 respondent No.2 meted out in her matrimonial house is continuous act committed by the petitioners. There might be a possibility of quarrel where she had been subjected to physical abuse by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5. However, the remaining petitioners had also been involved in connection with the cruelty in one or the other pretext. Therefore, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. Hence, he prays to reject the petition. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 adopted the arguments of learned HCGP and prayed to reject 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 respondent No.2 married accused No.1 on 22.05.2022. As per the averments of the complaint, on 10.02.2023, the father-in-law of respondent No.2 died in the house. There afterwards, the cruelty has begun. According to the complainant, on the following day, her husband after having consumed alcohol came to the house and assaulted her by saying that he lost his father as soon as she entered her matrimonial home. The mother-in-law of respondent No.2 also - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2094 CRL.P No. 200008 of 2025 scolded her in a similar manner. Further, accused No.1 had refused to cohabit with her and he was treating her as a maid servant. The other petitioners were also scolded respondent No.2 when accused No.1 was not there in the house. 12. In this context, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 1Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein the averments of paragraph No.16 held as under: 16. “Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar [Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 684] , this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused [Mohd. Ikram v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 1985] to quash an FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498-A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the 1 (2023) 16 SCC 666 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2094 CRL.P No. 200008 of 2025 in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged. 13. Having considered the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it appears from the record that where the allegation made in the FIR or the complaint, even if, they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima- facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused or if the allegations are made against the in-laws are not sufficient to proceed with them, FIR has to be quashed. 14. In the present case, though, respondent No.2 made several allegations against the in-laws which are omnibus in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2094 CRL.P No. 200008 of 2025 nature and do not constitute the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. Hence, it is appropriate to quash the proceedings. 15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.11700/2024 (Crime No.139/2023) pending before the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act stands quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SRT/JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67 CT:PK