- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7775 CRL.P No. 201727 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201727 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHARADA W/O CHANDRAKANTH SHIRWALKAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O H.NO.3-273, OPP. BSNL OFFICE, SUPER MARKET ROAD, KALABURAGI. 2. CHANDRAKANT S/O BASAPPA SHIRAWALKAR, AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O H.NO.3-273, OPP. BSNL OFFICE, SUPER MARKET ROAD, KALABURAGI. 3. SHASHIKANT S/O CHANDRAKANT SHIRWALKAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: LEGAL PRACTITIONER/ADVOCATE R/O H.NO.3-273, OPP. BSNL OFFICE, SUPER MARKET ROAD, KALABURAGI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585103. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7775 CRL.P No. 201727 of 2025 2. SMT. MAHALAXMI W/O CHETAN SHIRWALKAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O OPPOSITE BSNL OFFICE, SUPER MARKET KALABURAGI NOW R/AT PLOT NO.70, UDNOOR ROAD, JAYATIRTH NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE PASSED BY THE HON’BLE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALABURAGI IN C.C. NO.3849/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 109 READ WITH 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE NOW PENDING THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KALABURAGI IN ORDER DATED 22.03.2024 IN C.C. NO.3849/2024 (ARISING OUT CRIME NO.91/2023 OF KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION) CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4 (AS PER CHARGE SHEET) ARE CONCERNED. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7775 CRL.P No. 201727 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Captioned petition is filed by in-laws of second respondent/complainant seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in CC No.3849/2024 arising out of Crime No.91/2023 of Kalaburagi Women Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 109 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi. 2. The second respondent/daughter-in-law lodged a written complaint on 14.07.2023 alleging that her husband (accused No.1) and the present petitioners subjected her to ill-treatment, harassment and cruelty since the year 2019. Based on the said complaint, a crime came to be registered and, upon completion of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7775 CRL.P No. 201727 of 2025 investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No.3849/2024 on the specific ground that they never shared a common roof with the second respondent and, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State. Though served with notice, the second respondent has not chosen to appear or contest the present petition. In the light of the rival submissions, the following point arises for consideration: “Whether the proceedings pending in C.C. No.3849/2024 are liable to be quashed insofar as these petitioners are concerned?” 4. Before adverting to the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the cause title of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7775 CRL.P No. 201727 of 2025 proceedings initiated by the second respondent/defacto complainant in Crl. Misc. No.23/2023 filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and to extract paragraphs 4 to 7 of the said maintenance petition. The said pleadings, which are placed on record as Annexure-E, assume significance for the purpose of examining whether the petitioners and the second respondent were, in fact, residing under a common roof during the relevant period. “Smt. Mahalaxmi W/o Chetan Shirwal Age: 32 years, Occ: Household, R/o Basavraj Desai, Opp: Jayapreeth, Kalayan Mantap, Udnoor Road, Plot No: 70, Mahalaxmi Nilay, Kalaburagi ...Petitioner... V/s Chetan S/o Chandrakanth Sherwal Age: 37 years, Occ: Photo Studio R/o: B.G. Studio, H.No: 3-373, Opposite BSNL office, Super Market Road, Kalaburagi Phone No: 9538671777 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7775 CRL.P No. 201727 of 2025 ….Respondent..” “5. That, when the petitioner and respondent residing in rental house in the year 2017, the petitioner went to studio and seeing the work and helping to the respondent. At that time the mother of respondent not kept silent again started telling un-necessary about the petitioner that, she was taking, amount from the photo studio and using it for herself. By this the respondent started picking up quarrel with the petitioner and beating her. 6 That, the mother by name Sharada of the respondent again telling that, you leave my son, I will get marry with other girls. By hearing these words, when the petitioner approached to the father by name Chandrakanth of the respondent, but he also told that, my son is man, he can do anything, you live with your children, if you do not hear my words, you don't keep your leg in my house. When petitioner informed this matter to respondent brother by name Shashikanth, as usual he also telling like the respondent father and mother. 7. That, the respondent in the year 2017 met with one Teacher by name Meenakshi (Govt. Teacher) and she has having handsome salary for this she fall in love with her. After meeting with her respondent totally changed in his all habits, neglecting the petitioner and petitioner children's, and beating and picking up quarrel with the petitioner and giving harassment physical and mental torture to the petitioner and maintained illicit relationship with the one Meenakshi and leading life with her.” 5. On a careful perusal of the cause title as well as the averments made in paragraphs 4 to 7 of the petition filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7775 CRL.P No. 201727 of 2025 in Crl. Misc. No.23/2023, it clearly emerges that the second respondent herself has admitted that she was residing separately with accused No.1/husband in a rented house as far back as the year 2017. In the said proceedings, she has alleged that accused No.1 came into contact with a teacher by name Meenakshi, developed an intimate relationship with her and, thereafter, began to neglect the second respondent and their children. She has further alleged that accused No.1 frequently quarrelled with her, neglected the children and subjected her to physical assault. 6. A close and holistic reading of the maintenance petition unmistakably demonstrates that the gist of the allegations is directed solely against accused No.1/husband. The substratum of the dispute, as disclosed in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., revolves around marital discord between the husband and wife. One crucial and undisputed fact which flows from these pleadings is the clear admission of the second respondent - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7775 CRL.P No. 201727 of 2025 that she was residing separately with her husband, which necessarily presupposes that the present petitioners were not residing under the same roof with her. This admission, emanating from the second respondent herself, assumes considerable significance while examining the sustainability of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar1, has categorically cautioned that courts must be circumspect while proceeding against the relatives of the husband in cases arising out of matrimonial disputes and dowry- related allegations. The Supreme Court has emphasized that relatives of the husband ought not to be implicated mechanically on the basis of vague, omnibus or sweeping allegations, unless specific and distinct instances demonstrating their active involvement in the alleged offences are made out. 1 (2022) 6 SCC 599 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7775 CRL.P No. 201727 of 2025 8. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Ors. V. State of Telangaga and Anr.2 and Another has reiterated that a mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without there being specific allegations disclosing their role or active participation in the commission of the offence, is impermissible in law and such proceedings deserve to be nipped in the bud. 9. In the present case, the maintenance proceedings unmistakably reveal that the second respondent had been residing separately with her husband and that the allegations primarily pertain to acts allegedly committed by accused No.1. Despite this, the present complaint, which has now culminated in the filing of a charge sheet, seeks to rope in the petitioners by attributing omnibus and sweeping allegations, without disclosing any specific overt acts or incriminating material 2 2024 INSC 953 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7775 CRL.P No. 201727 of 2025 against them. In the absence of such material, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law. 10. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the admitted factual position emerging from the pleadings of the second respondent herself, this Court is of the considered view that the inherent jurisdiction deserves to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The proceedings in C.C. No.3849/2024, arising out of Crime No.91/2023 registered by the Kalaburagi Women Police Station, for the offences punishable under - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7775 CRL.P No. 201727 of 2025 Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, are hereby quashed insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 42 CT:SI