- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2036 CRL.P No. 200159 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200159 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHILPA W/O SANTOSH KASURE, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HUDGI VILLAGE, TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585 329. 2. SMT. JAISHREE W/O AMBARAYA KERUR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. ALGUD VILLAGE, TQ. KAMALAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102. 3. SMT. ANJALI W/O SANTOSH JAMADAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SANGOLAGI VILLAGE, TQ. ALAND, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 302. 4. SMT. ASHA W/O CHANDRAKANT KERUR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. ALGUD VILLAGE, TQ. KAMALAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102. 5. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI W/O NAGAPPA CHATTI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. H.NO. 10, HIGH COURT ROAD, Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2036 CRL.P No. 200159 of 2025 SANTOSH COLONY, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE, KALABURAGI, TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ASHOKNAGAR POLICE STATION, REPT. BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 103. 2. SMT. PRIYANKA W/O SHIVAKUMAR CHATTI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SANTOSH COLONY, KALABURAGI, NOW AT SAYAGAON VILLAGE, TQ. BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR-585 328. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1 SRI RAHUL R. ASTURE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND FURTHER QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.149/2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALABURAGI, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ASHOKNAGAR POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI BASED ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 323, 341, 498(A), 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 DP ACT, 1961. 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:2036 CRL.P No. 200159 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 6, have filed this petition being aggrieved by the registration of case in Crime No.149/2024 registered against them for the offences punishable under Section 323, 341, 498A, 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending on the file of V Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi. Factual matrix of the case: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that, the complainant / respondent No.2 stated that accused No.1 is her husband and accused Nos.2 to 6 are her in-laws. Respondent No.2 married accused No.1 on 09.12.2020. At the time of marriage, her parents had given cash and also gold ornaments in the form of dowry and also incurred the marriage expenditure. 3. After the marriage, respondent No.2 started residing with her husband and in-laws in her matrimonial home for a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2036 CRL.P No. 200159 of 2025 shorter period. Thereafter, she was being harassed by her husband and in-laws on one or the other pretext. 4. On 24.03.2022, she gave birth to her son and while performing the birth ceremony, the accused No.1 demanded the parents of respondent No.2 that gold should be put to the child. Accordingly, the mother of the first informant had given 5 grams of gold. It is further stated that, all the petitioners in one or the other pretext, were harassing the respondent No.2. 5. On 15.08.2023, the first informant delivered twin babies. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 6 visited the parents’ house of the respondent No.2 for nearly 10 times and also requested her to return to the matrimonial home. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 6 promised that they would look after her well. Therefore, in the month of March-2024, she had been to matrimonial home taking three children along with her. It is alleged that, after 40 days of her stay in their house, she has been harassed by the petitioners. 6. On 26.05.2024, again it is stated that, she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband and her in-laws. She - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2036 CRL.P No. 200159 of 2025 had further stated that, her sisters-in-law namely Jaishree, Shilpa and Anjali and also the husband of Jaishree, Sri.Ambaraya Keruru and Sri.Yadanooru, who is an Advocate, all were harassing the respondent No.2 stating that, she had to bring money from her parents’ house. 7. It is further stated that, she was abused that she has to ‘go and die’ and also insulted her that she should not show her face to them. The sister-in-law of respondent No.2, namely, Jaishree wrongfully restrained her and assaulted her by holding the tuft and caused injury and also took her mangalsutra and threw her out of the house. 8. On 27.05.2024, around 3.00 P.M, she was informed that, she should not file a case against the family members and she was further assured that, she would be taken good care henceforth. Believing the said assurance, she had lodged a complaint belatedly. 9. Heard Sri.Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2036 CRL.P No. 200159 of 2025 Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.Rahul R.Asture, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 10. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the allegations and harassment alleged to have taken place in the matrimonial house of respondent No.2 are baseless and false. There was no truth in the alleged incident. 11. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 made baseless and false allegations against the petitioners who are the in-laws of respondent No.2 and they are not connected to the affairs of the matrimonial house of respondent No.2. The petitioners are residents of different Taluks and except the statement of respondent No.2, the prosecution has not made any efforts to bring any independent witness regarding harassment. 12. It is further submitted that, on reading the complaint in its entirety, it can be gathered that the allegations are omnibus in nature. Moreover, the alleged incident stated to have taken place on 26.05.2024, however, the complaint came to be registered on 15.10.2024, that is after lapse of five months. Therefore, the petition has to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2036 CRL.P No. 200159 of 2025 be allowed. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition. 13. Per contra learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State vehemently submitted that the averments of the complaint would indicate that, all these petitioners, in one or the other pretext, were harassing the respondent No.2. The overt-act of the petitioners has been narrated in the complaint in detail. Therefore, it is not appropriate at this stage to quash the proceedings. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 prays to dismiss the petition. 14. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 adopted the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and he prays to dismiss the petition. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it is appropriate at this stage to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2036 CRL.P No. 200159 of 2025 and Another v. State of U.P. and Another1, paragraph Nos.17 and 21 read as under- “17. Aggrieved by the order of the Madras High Court dismissing the petition under Section 482 CrPC, the special leave petition was filed in this Court giving rise to the appeals therein where threefold contentions were raised viz.: (Ramesh case [(2005) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 735] , SCC p. 509, para 4) “(i) that the allegations are frivolous and without any basis; (ii) even according to the FIR, no incriminating acts were done within the jurisdiction of Trichy Police Station and the Court at Trichy and, therefore, the learned Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence; and (iii) taking cognizance of the alleged offences at [that] stage [was] barred under Section 468(1) CrPC as it was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468(2) CrPC.” Apart from the subsequent two contentions, it was urged that the allegations under the FIR do not make out any offence of which cognizance could be taken. 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2036 CRL.P No. 200159 of 2025 21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: (SCC p. 698, para 12) “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2036 CRL.P No. 200159 of 2025 ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their ‘young’ days in chasing their ‘cases’ in different courts.” The view taken by the Judges in that matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.” 16. On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Penal Code. It was enacted to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relative of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegations against the accused, more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be a clear abuse of the legal and judicial process. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2036 CRL.P No. 200159 of 2025 17. In the present case, having applied the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case mentioned supra, the allegations made against the petitioners appear to be bald and baseless. Moreover, on reading the complaint in its entirety, the possibility of petitioners being convicted is remote. Therefore, it is appropriate to allow the petition. 18. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) FIR and complaint in Crime No.149/2024 registered by respondent No.1 – police, pending on the file of the V Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi as against the petitioners, is quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE TMP/NM/Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65 CT:PK