- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1256 CRL.P No. 100984 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100984 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BHIMAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA MALLIGAWAD, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: PEON/ATTAINDER AT DIMHANS, R/O. JIRALI PLOT, MAHANTNAGAR, DHARWAD-580002. 2. SMT.KASTURI D/O. SAKARAM KADAM, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. JIRALI PLOT, MAHANTNAGAR, DHARWAD-580002. 3. SRI. TIPPANNA S/O. YALLAPPA MALLIGAWAD AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. GOLLAR COLONY, DHARWAD-580002. 4. SMT.YALLAWWA W/O. TIPPANNA MALLIGAWAD AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O GOLLAR COLONY, DHARWAD-580002. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H. M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.02 17:04:23 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1256 CRL.P No. 100984 of 2021 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD. 2. SMT. DURGAMMA W/O. BHIMAPPA MALLIGWAD AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O 3RD CROSS GOLLAR COLONY, DHARWAD-580002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. KAMALAKAR.M.S. FOR SRI. ROHIT S. PATIL, ADVOCATES FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/01/2021 PASSED IN PCR.NO.342/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 494, 420 AND 34 OF IPC AND R/W UNDER SECTION 89 OF REGISTRATION ACT. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1256 CRL.P No. 100984 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri H.M. Dharigond, learned counsel for the petitioners; Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1; and Sri Kamalakar M.S., learned counsel appearing for Sri Rohit S. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioners, who are accused in a private complaint in PCR No.342/2020, are aggrieved by the order referring the said complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) and have filed the present petition seeking following relief: “To quash the impugned order dated 19/01/2021 passed in PCR.No.342/2020 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad for the offence punishable under section 494, 420 and 34 of IPC and R/w under section 89 of Registration Act.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1256 CRL.P No. 100984 of 2021 3. Sri H.M. Dharigond, learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that petitioner No.1 has obtained a decree of divorce against respondent No.2. The said decree is the subject matter of MFA No.105157/2019, which is pending before this Court. 4. It is further contended that, in order to gain an upper hand in the pending proceedings, respondent No.2 has filed a private complaint in PCR No.342/2020, alleging harassment and commission of other offences by the petitioners, which are stated to be prima facie punishable under Sections 494 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). It is argued that the allegations are per se incorrect, and therefore, the order referring the matter for investigation deserves to be quashed. 5. The said contentions are opposed by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1256 CRL.P No. 100984 of 2021 6. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has meticulously perused the material on record. 7. On such perusal, it is evident that petitioner No.1 obtained a decree of divorce from the Prl. Judge Family Court, Dharwad, in M.C. No.152/2018, by judgment dated 30.08.2019, which is now under challenge in MFA No.105157/2019. 8. In the meantime, respondent No.2 has alleged that petitioner No.1, by playing fraud, has contracted a second marriage and has sought action against the petitioners and their family members. 9. On the other hand, the petitioners contend that the allegations are incorrect and seek dismissal of the complaint. 10. The Trial Magistrate has only referred the matter to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The petitioners are at liberty to place all necessary materials before the Investigating Agency and satisfy the authority that no offence has been committed by them. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1256 CRL.P No. 100984 of 2021 Even thereafter, if a charge sheet is filed, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. 11. Reserving such liberty to the petitioners, the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:ANB List No.: 3 Sl No.: 12