- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1744 CRL.P No. 200190 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200190 OF 2025 (482(Cr.P.C.)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHANKAR S/O THAVARU PAWAR, AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 2. RUPLABAI W/O THAVARU PAWAR, AGE:65 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 3. DEVI @ DEVIBAI D/O THAVARU PAWAR, AGE:42 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, ALL ARE R/O NRUPATHUNGA COLONY, SHAHABAD ROAD, RAJAPUR, KALABURAGI, TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585106. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAVI BHEEMSINGH CHAWAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH WOMEN PS KALABURAGI CITY, REP. BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT KALABURAGI BENCH –585107. 2. SMT. SHILPA W/O SHANKAR PAWAR, AGED: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1744 CRL.P No. 200190 of 2025 R/O. NRUPATHUNGA COLONY, SHAHABAD ROAD, RAJAPUR, KALABURAGI, NOW AT CHAWAN TANDA KAMALAPUR, TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585106. NOW AT PRESENT R/O. H.NO.57 NEAR DEVI TEMPLE, KAMALAPUR, TQ. KAMALAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI-584133. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; SRI R.S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.9930 OF 2024 (IN CRIME NO.51 OF 2024) OF KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 498(A), 323, 504, 506, R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KALABURAGI AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioners who are husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent No.2 have approached this Court seeking to quash criminal proceedings in C.C.No.9930/2024. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1744 CRL.P No. 200190 of 2025 Brief facts of the case:- 2. The respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 28.04.2024 stating that she married with the petitioner No.1, two years ago as a second wife. After the marriage, she started residing with the petitioners in her matrimonial house. The petitioners were used to teasing her on one or the other pretext and also harassing her saying that she was not able to cook food properly and also not good looking, etc. 3. On 18.04.2024 at about 7.00 a.m., when she was staying in her matrimonial house, her husband started scolding her and assaulting her by stating that she has to work by raising early in the morning and other two petitioners supported the petitioner No.1 in assaulting and harassing the respondent No.2. Therefore, she had to leave her matrimonial home and she started residing with her parents. Hence, she lodged the complaint against the petitioners. 4. The respondent-Police have registered the case in Crime No.51/2024 and after conducting investigation, submitted the charge sheet. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1744 CRL.P No. 200190 of 2025 5. Heard Sri Ravi Bheemsingh Chawan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri R.S. Lagali, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2, deliberately with a mala fide intention to come out of her matrimonial house, filed a false case by making false allegations which are far away from the truth. 7. It is further submitted that though the respondent No.2 made allegations against the petitioners, the averments of the charge sheet would clearly indicate that the petitioner No.1 stated to have assaulted the respondent No.2. However, the allegations made against the rest of the petitioners are baseless, concocted and omnibus in nature. Therefore, the petition has to be allowed and the proceedings against these petitioners are required to be quashed. Making such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1744 CRL.P No. 200190 of 2025 8. Per contra, Sri.R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently submitted that respondent No.2 married the petitioner No.1 as a second wife. Since from the date of marriage, the petitioners used to harass the respondent No.2 in one or the other pretext. She had been subjected to cruelty on several occasions. Though all such events under which she had been subjected to cruelty have not been explained in detail in the complaint or in the charge sheet, the fact remains that, cruelty of which she was meted out, has to be tested through proper trial. Therefore, it is not appropriate at this stage, to quash the proceedings. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 prays to dismiss the petition. 9. Similarly, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and further, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 prays to dismiss the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1744 CRL.P No. 200190 of 2025 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing the averments of the charge sheet, it appears from the records that respondent No.2 married the petitioner No.1 two years ago and she was residing along with the petitioners in their house. 11. It is stated that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent No.2 respectively, stated to have insulted her by saying that she was not cooking food properly and not good looking, etc. It is needless to say that accused No.3/petitioner No.3 being a dumb, used to scold respondent No.2 by way of making gestures. 12. The allegation made against petitioner No.1 is that he was harassing respondent No.2, both mentally and physically, as such, she is stated to have suffered a lot at her matrimonial house. Therefore, she had to leave the said house and started residing with her parents. 13. Be that as it may, on reading of the allegations made against the petitioners, now it is appropriate to refer the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1744 CRL.P No. 200190 of 2025 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Digambar and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024, SCC Online SC 3836, wherein in paragraph No.30 it is held as under: 30. “In the present case also, as discussed above, the facts when taken at face value, do not reveal any specific instance of cruelty committed by the appellants herein. In our view, only stating that cruelty has been committed by the appellants herein due to some reason, would not amount to the offence under Section 498-A of IPC being attracted. The next allegation regarding a specific incident relating to the miscarriage being caused by the appellants herein has also been discussed above, a bare perusal of the allegation and the analysis of the same when compared with the statement of the Doctor reveals that even if the allegations are accepted at the face value, it would not prima facie make out a case against the present appellants.” 14. On reading of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it makes it clear that the facts when taken at face value do not reveal any specific instance of cruelty committed by the petitioners which would not attract the ingredients of Section 498A of IPC. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1744 CRL.P No. 200190 of 2025 15. In the present case, though respondent No.2 made allegations against all the petitioners, prima facie, as against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, it appears that there are no specific instances of cruelty committed by them however, the allegations are omnibus in nature. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that respondent No.2 has not made out any case against petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Whereas, the petitioner No.1 is concerned, there are specific allegations made out against him to proceed further in the case. 16. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal petition is allowed in part. ii. The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.9930/2024 (in Crime No.51/2024 of Kalaburagi City Women Police station) pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, as against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is quashed. iii. The petition in respect of petitioner No.1 stands dismissed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1744 CRL.P No. 200190 of 2025 iv. Liberty is reserved to the Trial Court to proceed with petitioner No.1/accused No.1, in accordance with law. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE VNR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 CT:PK