- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2098 CRL.P No. 200219 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.200219 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SUMITRA W/O NAMDEV CHAVAN, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O PUJARI ONI, INDI, TQ:INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101. 2. SAGAR S/O NAMDEV CHAVAN, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: APPOINTED CONSTABLE IN CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, R/O PUJARI ONI, INDI, TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPUR AT PRESENT BHAVANI NILAYA RAMASWAMY STREET, J.C.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560006. 3. SNEHA W/O SAGAR RATHOD, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O MUNI REDDY PALYA, BENGALURU-560064. 4. SAGAR S/O SURESH RATHOD, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE, R/O SHIVAJI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560064. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI S. B. SANGOLAGI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2098 CRL.P No. 200219 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE THROUGH VIJAYAPUR WOMEN POLICE STATION, DIST. VIJAYAPUR (REPRESENTING BY LEARNED ADDL. S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI-585107). 2. KAREENA W/O SHRAVANKUMAR CHAVAN, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O PUJARI ONI, INDI, TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI S.S. SAJJANSHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.41/2024 OF VIJAYAPUR WOMEN POLICE STATION, VIJAYAPUR AND THE CASE IS PENDING BEFORE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT VIJAYAPUR IN C.C.NO.9200/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 498(A), 323, 504, 506 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 4 OF DP ACT. 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:2098 CRL.P No. 200219 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) Accused Nos.2 to 5 are before this Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.41/2024 of Vijayapur Women Police Station, Vijayapur for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, pending before the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Vijayapur in C.C.No.9200/2024. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant stated to have married Shravankumar on 10.02.2023. It is an arranged marriage. After the marriage, she started residing in the matrimonial home along with family members. Till four months, she was taken nice care by the family members at the matrimonial home. Thereafter, they started demanding amount of Rs.5 lakhs as a dowry even though she stated that her father had died, her mother is poor and unable to give the dowry - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2098 CRL.P No. 200219 of 2025 in the form of cash. They were scolding her and ill-treating her for one or the other pretext in connection with the demand of dowry. 3. It is further stated that she had informed the said ill-treatment to her mother and brother and also relatives. The relatives of the complainant convened a meeting and instructed the petitioner herein to adjust and lead life. However, they did not change their mindset and used to demand dowry. On 13-02-2024, at about 10-00 a.m., when she was staying in her matrimonial home, the petitioners herein along with her husband, stated to have scolded her in a filthy language and her husband assaulted her with his hands on different parts of the body and all of them scolded her for one or other pretext in connection with the demand of dowry. Therefore, she filed a complaint against all the petitioners before the respondent/police 16.05.2024. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2098 CRL.P No. 200219 of 2025 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the in-laws of respondent No.2. The allegations made against the petitioners are bald, baseless and also omnibus in nature. Though it is stated in the complaint that her in-laws were demanding Rs.5 lakhs as a dowry, the fact remains that there is no specific overt-act as against the petitioners in respect of the demand of dowry. 5. It is further submitted that even though it is considered that all the petitioners herein stated to have assaulted on 13-02-2024, in connection with the demand of dowry, the fact remains that respondent No.2 filed a complaint on 16.05.2024 that is after lapse of three months. The delay has not been properly explained by respondent No.2. Therefore, the petition has to be allowed. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the averments of the complaint would indicate that all these petitioners, being the in-laws - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2098 CRL.P No. 200219 of 2025 of respondent No.2 were demanding dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and also they were in ill-treating respondent No.2 when she was in her matrimonial home for one or the other pretext. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet been filed. At this stage, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. Making such submissions, he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge-sheet, it appears from the record that respondent No.2 is the wife of accused No.1. The petitioners herein are the in-laws of respondent No.2. As per the averment of the complaint, these petitioners were demanding additional dowry in the form of cash of Rs.5 lakhs. Further, it appears from the record that there is no specific averment or overt-act against these petitioners regarding demand of dowry. It appears from the complaint that respondent No.2 made omnibus allegations against these petitioners regarding cruelty, harassment and also - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2098 CRL.P No. 200219 of 2025 demand of dowry. Moreover, the incident of assault was stated to have taken place as per the averments of the complaint on 13.02.2024, however, she lodged a complaint on 16.5.2024. There is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Such being the fact, asking the petitioners to face trial on the basis of omnibus allegations would be a futile exercise and it becomes an abuse of process of law. Now 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.17 & 18 held 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.- 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— 1 2024 SCC Online SC 3836 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2098 CRL.P No. 200219 of 2025 (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 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.” 8. On reading of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, makes it clear that the false case in respect of making certain allegations against the in-laws in connection with demand of dowry has to be seen leniently when the allegations are bald, baseless and omnibus in nature. Having considered the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it emerges from the record of the present case that even respondent No.2 made certain - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2098 CRL.P No. 200219 of 2025 allegations against these petitioners, which are bald, baseless and omnibus in nature. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 9. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.41/2024 of Vijayapur Women Police Station, Vijayapur, pending on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Vijayapur in C.C.No.9200/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act is quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75