- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2517 CRL.P No. 200085 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200085 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. RENUKA W/O SIDDANNA KALASHETTY, AGE:60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KALESHWAR ROAD, KALAGI, TQ. KALAGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585312. 2. SIDDANNA S/O SHESHAPPA KALASHETTY, AGE:66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALESHWAR ROAD, KALAGI, TQ. KALAGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585312. 3. VIJAYLAXMI W/O UMAKANT, AGE:29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR JUMMA MASJID, KALAGI, TQ. KALAGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585312 4. BASAVARAJ S/O SIDDANNA KALASHETTY, AGE:24 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O. KALESHWAR ROAD, KALAGI, TQ. KALAGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585312, NOW R/O. PUNE MAHARASTRA STATE. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI MAHANTESH H. DESAI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2517 CRL.P No. 200085 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN PS, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH KALABURAGI-585103. 2. AISHWARYA W/O SHASHIKANT KALASHETTY, AGE:23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KALAGI, TQ. KALAGI, DIST. KALABURAGI, NOW AT R/O. SAMATA COLONY, KALABURAGI-585103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; SRI RAJESH G. DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD) U/SEC 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KALABURAGI IN C.C NO.9715/2024 (CRIME NO.1/2024 OF KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN P.S) TAKING THE COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC 498A, 323, 504 R/W 34 IPC AND SEC 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND QUASH FURTHER CRIMINAL PROCEEDING INITIATED AGAINST THEM. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2517 CRL.P No. 200085 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) This petition is filed by accused Nos.2 to 5 seeking to set aside the order dated 07.08.2024, passed by the Court of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi in C.C.No.9715/2024 arising out of Crime No.1/2024 of Kalaburagi City Women police station, Kalaburagi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that respondent No.2 married with accused No.1 – Shashikant Kalashetty on 01.12.2019. It is stated that, at the time of marriage, dowry was given in the form of gold, silver and other articles. She led her married life happily for a period of two weeks and thereafter, on 15.12.2019 onwards, the husband of respondent No.2/complainant used to sale the gold articles, which were given to him at the time of marriage for the purpose of consuming alcohol. The - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2517 CRL.P No. 200085 of 2025 respondent No.2 even bring the same to the notice of her in-laws, they did not bother to advice their son instead they scolded her that she should bring additional dowry in the form of cash. She made certain allegations against her in-laws that they were demanding additional dowry in the form of cash. In spite of repeated panchayats held to advice her in-laws and husband, they did not mend their way. She was also ill-treated in her matrimonial home for one or the other reason. Hence, she lodged a complaint against all the family members of accused No.1 on 04.01.2024 before the respondent – police. The respondent – police after conducting the investigation filed charge sheet. 3. Heard Sri Mahantesh H. Desai for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Gopal Krishna Yadav for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri Rajesh G. Doddamani for respondent No.2. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that registration of the complaint by respondent - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2517 CRL.P No. 200085 of 2025 No.2 is illegal and even there are allegations made against the petitioners, the same are omnibus in nature. The petitioners have been roped in the case only to harass them and for the purpose of extracting money. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioners are residing separately in different places from accused No.1 from the date of marriage. In fact respondent No.1 was residing in her parents’ house since 2021. Even though certain documents were produced before the police regarding abode of the petitioners like Aadhar Car etc, the same have not been considered. Consequently, charge sheet has been filed. Making such submission, he prays to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently submitted that respondent No.2 being a woman married to accused No.1 – Shashikant and she was thrown out from her matrimonial house by all the petitioners. Respondent No.2 had been - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2517 CRL.P No. 200085 of 2025 subjected to cruelty both mentally and physically and made her to go her parents’ house. 7. It is further submitted that prima facie there are materials to show that the petitioners have committed alleged offences against the respondent No.2/complainant. Therefore, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings at this stage against the petitioners. Making such submissions, they pray to dismiss the petition. 8. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Digambar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another1, particularly in paragraph Nos.17 & 18, which reads as under: “17. Firstly, the allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC must be examined. The said provision reads as under: “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- 1 2024 SCC Online SC 3836 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2517 CRL.P No. 200085 of 2025 Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 18. The ingredients for an offence to be made out under Section 498-A of IPC require that there has to be cruelty inflicted against the victim which either drives her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. The second part of this - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2517 CRL.P No. 200085 of 2025 Section refers to harassment with a view to satisfy an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security raised by the husband or his relatives. In the present case, no allegations which would fulfil the requirement of the second part are found.” 9. On careful reading of the dictum of the above judgment, it appears from the record that respondent No.2 had married accused No.1 – Shashikant and she made several allegations against all the family members of accused No.1 stating that they were demanding additional dowry in the form of cash and also they were ill-treating her in one or the other pretext in connection with the additional dowry. However, there are no specific allegations made against the in-laws, who are the petitioners herein. 10. Even though respondent No.2 had specifically contended in her complaint that on different occasions, she had been subjected to cruelty at the instance of accused No.1, that would not sufficient to ask the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2517 CRL.P No. 200085 of 2025 petitioners to face the trial. Ultimately, the settled principles of law must prevail over the allegations which are omnibus in nature. In the recent years, it is a rampant in the society that daughter-in-laws are making certain allegations against the in-laws in order to take revenge or control them by implicating them in the criminal cases. In our country like India, especially in the middle class family, such incidents are happening rapidly on various reasons. 11. In the present case, after having gone through the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the allegations made against the petitioners are omnibus in nature. Hence, the said allegations would not sufficient to ask the petitioners to face the trial. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. 12. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2517 CRL.P No. 200085 of 2025 ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the Court of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi in C.C.No.9715/2024 arising out of Crime No.1/2024 of Kalaburagi City Women police station, Kalaburagi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 stands set aside. (iii) The Trial Court is directed to proceed with accused No.1 in accordance with law. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT:PK