- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2343 CRL.P No. 200203 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200203 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHOBHAVATI W/O BASAVARAJ HIRANNE, AGE:55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. PLOT NO.40, SWASTIK NAGAR, SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI–585104. 2. SHARANKUMAR S/O BASAVARAJ HIRANNE, AGE:29 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O. PLOT NO.40, SWASTIK NAGAR, SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI–585104. 3. SARSWATI W/O ARUNKUMAR, AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. GORCHINCHOLI, TQ.BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR – 585411. 4. JAGNNATH S/O RAMSHETTY, AGE:55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.19-1-336/1, BHAVANI COLONY, SHIVANAGAR, BIDAR–585326. 5. RAJESHWARI W/O JAGNATH, AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. H.NO.19-1-336/1, BHAVANI COLONY, SHIVANAGAR, BIDAR-585326. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SANJAY KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2343 CRL.P No. 200203 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PSI, KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN PS, REP. BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI–585101. 2. SADHANA W/O PREMKUMAR HIRANNE, AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SWASTIK NAGAR, PRESENTLY AT BESIDE MAHARSHI VIDYA MANDIR, VISHAL NAGAR, KUSNOOR ROAD, KALABURAGI-585104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), U/S 528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT DATED 17-02-2023 IN CRIME NO. 16/2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A), 504, 506, 323, 324, 109 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ALSO UNDER SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT 1961 AND ALSO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN CC NO.4569/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A), 504, 506, 323, 324, 109 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ALSO UNDER SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT, 1961 AND ALSO QUASH ALL THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 12-07-2023, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF IST ADDL. CJ AND JMFC AT KALABURAGI. 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:2343 CRL.P No. 200203 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for quashing the registration of FIR in Crime No.16/2023 filed by respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506, 109 r/w 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P Act and the order of taking cognizance dated 12.07.2023 pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Kalaburagi in C.C. No.4569/2023. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that, respondent No.2 married accused No.1 on 28.12.2020 as per the customs prevailing in the community. At the time of marriage, cash and gold were given to the accused No.1. After the marriage, the complainant started residing with her in- laws in her matrimonial house. She was taken care of nicely and treated well for four to five months. After five months, her father-in-law died due to his illness. Her husband was not working after the death of her father-in- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2343 CRL.P No. 200203 of 2025 law. After the death of her father-in-law, her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law started demanding her that she should bring amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs and also 5 tolas of gold as a dowry. However, she expressed her inability that she was not in a position to bring the dowry as demanded by them. Thereafter, she was ill-treated by her husband and in-laws. 3. When the respondent No.2 had informed the said demand of dowry to her mother, immediately, her mother and relatives went to the house of the petitioners and advised them to take care of her properly. Again, the husband and the in-laws started ill-treating her on one or the other pretext. In the meantime, she became pregnant and went to the house of her parents for the purpose of completing her pre and post natal period. 4. It is further stated that, even after she gave birth to a child, her in-laws did not turn up to take care of her and also to see the child. According to her, they did not mend their ways and they were not taking proper care. Hence, she lodges a complaint against her in-laws on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2343 CRL.P No. 200203 of 2025 17.02.2023. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.15/2023 for the offences stated supra. 5. Heard Sri.Sanjay Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1 – State. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that, in the FIR, the allegations made against the husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. However, in the charge sheet, they made all these petitioners as accused and the respondent police are trying to implicate them in the false case. The allegations made against these petitioners are so absurd and inherently improbable and there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against them. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioners herein are the mother, sister, brother, uncle and aunt of accused No.1. They are residing in different places and different cities. In fact, accused No.1 and the complainant were residing separately in a rented house. Though, the alleged incident of cruelty and harassment stated to have been - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2343 CRL.P No. 200203 of 2025 taken place from 15.06.2021, a complaint came to be registered on 17.02.2023. 8. It is further submitted that, on 17.02.2023, at about 11.00 a.m., naming ceremony of the child was held in the hotel and all the family members were attending the program. After completion of the program, the mother- in-law and brother-in-law went to their house. However, the accused No.1 who is the husband of respondent No.2 took her to the rented house. When she was going to the house, a quarrel had taken place between accused No.1 and his mother-in-law. 9. It is further submitted that accused No.1 assaulted the mother of respondent No.2, consequently, she sustained injuries. Further, he assaulted her brother Sangamesh. A complaint came to be registered against him and others for the offences stated supra. Therefore, the ingredients against the petitioners herein would certainly not to be attracted. Hence, the proceedings against them are required to be quashed. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2343 CRL.P No. 200203 of 2025 10. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent No.1 – State vehemently resisted the submissions and he further submitted that the act of committing the cruelty and harassment against the respondent No.2 by the petitioners has been narrated in the charge sheet. There are prima facie materials to proceed against them by filing the charge sheet. Such being the fact, it is not appropriate at this stage to quash the proceedings. If such an order is passed, certainly, it would cause injustice to a woman who is in need for justice. Therefore, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. Making such submissions, the learned HCGP prays to reject the petition. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, it would indicate that the respondent No.2 after having married accused No.1, was staying in her matrimonial home for shorter period. Thereafter, she was being harassed for an additional dowry in the form of cash and gold. Therefore, she was forced to go out of the matrimonial house. On 17.02.2023 around 11.00 a.m., - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2343 CRL.P No. 200203 of 2025 accused No.1 and others had arranged the naming ceremony of the child. The family members of respondent No.2 and accused No.1 were present in the said program. After the program, the petitioners herein had left the premises. The accused No.1 in order to keep her in a separate house, he was taking her to the rented house along with the mother of respondent No.2. While they were going through the staircase, an altercation had taken place between the accused No.1 and his mother-in- law. It is stated that he had assaulted his mother-in-law and brother-in-law in that scuffle. 12. On careful reading of the entire complaint and charge sheet, the complaint averments would indicate that the alleged assault had taken place on 17.02.2023 in the rented house of accused No.1 where none of the petitioners were present. Though, the averments of the complaint and charge sheet would indicate that respondent No.2 had been subjected to cruelty and harassment, all the allegations are omnibus in nature. Prima facie, it appears that the respondent No.2 had filed - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2343 CRL.P No. 200203 of 2025 this complaint in order to take vengeance against these petitioners. 13. Mere making allegations and mentioning the provisions against in-laws without any substance in the averments of the complaint, not sufficient to proceed against them. Under such circumstances, the Courts are required to deal with suitably in order to secure the ends of justice. 14. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABHISHEK v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH1 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 which read thus: “14. In Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another [(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that 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, as allegations of harassment by husband’s close 1 (2023) Livelaw (SC) 731 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2343 CRL.P No. 200203 of 2025 relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184], this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the ‘be all and end all’ of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC.” 15. On careful reading of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it makes it clear that the tendency of implicating the husband and in-laws in a case for dowry harassment or cruelty is increasing drastically day by day even for the petty reasons that would take place even in the matrimonial house. In order to regulate such issue, the Courts are required to apply its judicious mind and dealt that issue and rebut itself. Ultimately, it is necessary to secure the quietus between the family. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2343 CRL.P No. 200203 of 2025 Applying the said principles in this case, it is relevant to note that the respondent No.2 stayed in her matrimonial home for shorter period. During the said period, she is stated to have faced so many issues with the husband and the in-laws. She was forced to bring an additional dowry in the form of cash and gold. Whey they refused to heed their words, she was forced to go out of the house. 16. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The order of taking cognizance dated 12.07.2023 and further proceedings in C.C No.4569/2023 arising out of Crime No.16/2023 registered by the respondent police, pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Kalaburagi, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RSP/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49 CT:PK