- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1998 CRL.P No. 102932 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102932 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MUTTANNA S/O. PRAHLAD GURAV AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. MUTTUR, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587119. 2. KALAVATI W/O. PRALHAD GURAV AGE. MAJOR, OCC. NIL, R/O. MUTTUR, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587119. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD, THROUGH PSI, JAMKHANDI RURAL POLICE STATION, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587330. 2. SMT. SAVITA W/O. MUTTANNA GURAV AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. STATE GOVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O. KUMBAR GALLI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTIALATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 02/2025 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NOS. 1 AND 2) (JAMKHANDI TOWN PS CRIME NO. 0092/2024) PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.17 16:59:19 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1998 CRL.P No. 102932 of 2025 SECTIONS 85, 351(3), 352, 133, 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA 2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Girish A. Yadawad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent No.1 and Sri.S.C.Bhuti, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Present petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayer: “wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.02/2025 registered against the petitioners (accused Nos.1 and 2) (Jamkhandi Town PS Crime No.0092/2024) pending on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi for the offences punishable under Section 85, 351(3), 352, 133, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1998 CRL.P No. 102932 of 2025 Sanhita, 2023 in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. A complaint came to be lodged by respondent No.2 with Jamakhandi Town Police Station which was registered in Crime No.92/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 83, 351(3), 352, 133 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that the respondent No.2/complainant is the wife of petitioner No.1 whose marriage got solemnized with petitioner No.1 as per the Hindu rites and customs and they could not get the children despite their best efforts and including the IVF treatment. 5. In that regard, there used to be frequent quarrels. Complaint averments would furnish necessary details as to the physical and mental harassment imparted to respondent No.2 by petitioner No.1. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1998 CRL.P No. 102932 of 2025 6. Petitioner No.2 being the mother-in-law of respondent No.2, also abused the complainant and ill- treated her when she wanted to join the husband and has harassed her. 7. Police after receipt of the complaint, registered the case as aforesaid and investigated the matter in detail and filed charge sheet against the petitioners herein. 8. Learned Trial Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners, issued process. 9. Validity of the said order is challenged by the petitioners, in this petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are artificial in nature inasmuch as huge amount of money has been spent for IVF treatment that too at Bombay. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1998 CRL.P No. 102932 of 2025 11. If the allegations as in the charge sheet is taken into account, then nobody would have spent the money to the tune of Rs.15,00,000 to Rs.20,00,000/- for IVF treatment. Therefore, there is no truth or substantive allegations leveled against the petitioner. 12. He would also point out that except the omnibus allegation leveled against the mother-in-law, there is no specific allegation against her. Therefore, atleast insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, pending criminal proceedings needs to be quashed. 13. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would oppose the petition grounds by contending that in the complaint itself, there are specific allegations against the mother-in-law as well and insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, there are specific instances were petitioner No.1 has harassed the complainant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1998 CRL.P No. 102932 of 2025 physically and mentally. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition in toto. 14. Having heard the arguments of parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, insofar as petitioner No.1/husband is concerned, there are specific instances revealed in the complaint itself and investigation agency has collected such necessary materials including the drafting of panchanama of the places where respondent No.2 has been physically and mentally harassed by petitioner No.1. 16. Except the omnibus allegation leveled against petitioner No.2, there are no specific allegations. 17. Likewise, mother-in-law did not share common roof with the couple. Both petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were employed and used to spend major portion of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1998 CRL.P No. 102932 of 2025 their time in the employment. Therefore, possibility of rift between petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 are rare. 18. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, this Court is of the considered opinion that the pending proceedings against petitioner No.2 needs to be quashed whereas the pending proceedings shall continue insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned. 19. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Petition insofar as petitioner No.1 is dismissed. ii. Petition insofar as petitioner No.2 is allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1998 CRL.P No. 102932 of 2025 iii. Pending proceedings in CC No.02/2025 against petitioner No.2/accused No.2 registered in Crime No.92/2024 dated 14.09.2024 in Jamakhandi Town Police Station on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi stands quashed. iv. It is made clear that quashing of the pending proceedings as against petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall not affect the rights of the parties in the pending trial in any manner. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV, CT:CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 109