- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2453 CRL.P No. 104589 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104589 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI NAGARADDI S/O SUBHASH MARIGOUDRA AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. BELAVANKI, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG, AND ALSO RESIDING AT SRI RAGHAVENDRA CLINIC POLICE HEAD QUARTERS KEMPAGOUDA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560091. 2. SUBHASH S/O NAGAPPA MARIGOUDRA @ TEGGRINKERI AGE. 63 YEARS R/O. BELAVANKI, TQ. RON DIST. GADAG-582202. 3. SMT SUJATHA W/O SUBHASH MARIGOUDA @ TEGGRINKERI AGE. 52 YEARS, R/O. BELAVANKI, TQ. RON DIST. GADAG-582202. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD, THROUGH RON PS, DIST. GADAG-582 202. 2. SMT. PRATIMA W/O NAGARADDI MARIGOUDRA AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BELAVNKI, TQ. RON DIST. GADAG, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.19 15:36:25 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2453 CRL.P No. 104589 of 2025 KALAMESHWAR NAGAR, KUNCHANUR ROAD, JAMKHANDI TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PRAKASH N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SE. 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.817/2024 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NOS.1 TO3) (RON PS CRIME NO.0025/2024) PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., RON FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 498A, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Girish A. Yadwad, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for respondent No.1-State and Sri.Prakash N. Hosmane, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 2. A memo came to be filed during the course of argument. 3. Placing the memo on record, the petition insofar as it relates to the first petitioner is dismissed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2453 CRL.P No. 104589 of 2025 4. As such, the matter is taken up insofar as the prayers of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. 5. Facts of the case are as under: The second respondent, having married the first petitioner, had a brief period of happy marital life. Thereafter, there were bickerings in the matrimonial tie. Subsequently thereto, the first petitioner and the second respondent started living in Bangalore, while the parents of the first petitioner continued to reside in Belavanki village, Ron Taluka, Gadag District. Later, there were differences arose and the first petitioner initiated for divorce by the first petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the present complaint is nothing but a counterblast to the divorce proceedings initiated by the first petitioner. It is submitted that, except for omnibus and vague allegations, there are no specific overt-acts attributed to petitioner Nos.2 and 3. No specific instances of harassment are made out against them and thus sought for allow the petition insofar as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned. 7. Per Contra, Sri.Prakash Hosmane, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, and Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil, leaned High - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2453 CRL.P No. 104589 of 2025 Court Government Pleader would contend that the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 were residing in the shared household along with the first petitioner and respondent No.2 at Belavanki, Ron Taluka. It is contended that during that period, they also subjected respondent No.2 to physical and mental harassment and thus sought for dismissal of the petition. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of material on record, admittedly, first petitioner and second respondent were residing in Bangalore, whereas petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were residing separately at Belavanki village, Ron Taluka, Gadag District. 10. On account of serious differences in the matrimonial tie, the first petitioner initiated divorce proceedings. Thereafter, the present complaint came to be filed by the second respondent. 11. In the absence of specific allegations or overt-acts attributed to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, and considering the fact that they were residing separately, the question arises as to what made her remain keep quiet until the filing of the divorce petition, if there was indeed real harassment as contended by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2453 CRL.P No. 104589 of 2025 her. This aspect needs to be taken into account while considering the prayer of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 seeking quashing of the pending criminal proceedings. 12. This Court also bestowed its best attention to the averments made in the complaint and other material on record. 13. On such perusal of the same, this Court is satisfied that, except omnibus allegations against petitioner Nos.2 and 3, no specific instances are alleged which would prima facie attract the offences alleged against them in the complaint. 14. Accordingly, a case is made out for quashing the pending criminal proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 and 3. 15. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The petition insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned is dismissed, placing the memo on record. (ii) The petition is allowed insofar as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2453 CRL.P No. 104589 of 2025 (iii) Consequently, the pending proceedings in C.C.No.817/2024 arising out of Crime No.25/2024 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ron, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/-Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 66