-1-

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200827 OF 2022 (482)

BETWEEN:

1.

2. S

Digitally signed
by KHAJAAMEEN .
L MALAGHAN
Location: HIGH 3.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

4.
 -2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI KADLOOR SATYANARAYANACHARYA, ADVOCATE)

 -3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH

BASAVAKALYAN TOWN P.S.
RPTD. BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.

2. SMT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI K. S. GANESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO, QUASH THE PROSECUTION
LAUNCHED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C NO.06/2022 ON
THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BASAVAKALYAN
ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.133/2021 OF BASAVAKALAYAN TOWN
POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 341, 504, 498-A, R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent-State.

Though respondent No.2 had appeared through her

counsel, there was no representation on her behalf.

 -4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022

2. Accused Nos. 1 to 10 have approached this

Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the

FIR and the chargesheet registered against them in CC

No.06/2022 (arising out of Crime No.133/2021) of

Basavakalyana Town P.S., for the offences punishable

under Sections 341, 498A, 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

3. The complainant who is the wife of accused

No.1 filed a complaint alleging that the marriage of the

complainant and accused No.1 took place on

07-12-2014 and thereafter, they were blessed with two

daughters. It was alleged that for two years, the

relationship was cordial and they did not get any child

during that period and therefore, accused No.2, the

mother-in-law of the complainant and others had started

mental and physical harassment to her. It was further

alleged that the husband and his family members had

demanded gold at the time of baby showers of the

complainant and later, the mother-in-law was insisting

that clothes and other requirement had to be met by the

 -5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022

parents of the complainant. There were tauntings by the

complainant and the gold belonging to the complainant

was given to the other relatives of the accused. The

complaint narrates several incidents like the complainant

was made to stay in the room and accused used to state

that accused No.1 would marry another lady and that the

complainant would be killed by using rat poison. It was

also alleged that there were also harassment regarding the

phone calls and accused No.2 was insisting that the

complainant should call the sisters of accused No.1. It is

also alleged that whenever the children are suffering from

fever, accused No.1 used to bring medicine prescribed by

the Doctors and he was not allowing the complainant to

give Ayurveda treatment to the children. Several such

incidents were mentioned in the complaint and it was

alleged that since 7 years, such harassment was given and

in the said tension her father succumbed to death.

Therefore, she had sought for action against all the

accused. After registration of the case, the Investigating

 -6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022

Officer had investigated the matter and ultimately, filed

the chargesheet against accused Nos. 1 to 10.

4. Now accused Nos. 1 to 10 have approached this

Court stating that there are no discernoble and specific

allegations against these petitioners which would

constitute an offence. It is contended that the complainant

makes omnibus allegations against all the accused and

specific incident of harassment or assault or any such acts

committed by accused are not narrated either by the

complainant or any of the witnesses cited by the

prosecution. Therefore, it is contended that the case

against the petitioners be quashed.

5. Per contra, the learned HCGP for State has

submitted that the complaint clearly mention the

harassment meted out by accused Nos.1 and 2 and that

the several incidents narrated by the complainant in the

complaint as well as her statement before the police

clearly show that it was accused Nos.1 and 2 who were

harassing the complainant. Though there is a scanty

 -7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022

material as against accused Nos. 3 to 10, the statements

of the witnesses show that these accused were also

supporting accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, it is submitted

that there are no reasons to quash the case against the

accused/petitioners.

6. It is relevant to note that the decision of the

Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan kausar @ Sonam

and others Vs. State of Bihar and other1 considers the

various judgments rendered by the Apex Court concerning

an offence under Section 498A of IPC, right from the

judgment in the case of Rajesh Sharma and others Vs.

State of UP, the Apex court has chronicled the latest

judgment in the case of K. Subba Rao Vs. The State of

2
Telangana and ultimately, in para 22 of its judgment it

holds as below:

“ 22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant

circumstances and in the absence of any specific
role attributed to the accused appellants, it would
be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through

1
2022 AIAR (Criminal) 338
2
2018 (14) SCC 452
 -8-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022

the tribulations of a trial, i.e. general and omnibus

allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the
relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to
undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court
in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to
an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon
the accused, and such an exercise must therefore
be discouraged. “

7. It is pertinent to note that the provisions of

Section 498 of IPC are quite often misused and minor

differences between the couple are being brought to the

Court unnecessarily by roping in all the family members of

the husband, who are staying elsewhere than the place of

stay of the couple. In fact, there would not be any

evidence to show that the relatives of the husband had

also a role in the alleged dispute between the husband and

wife. The differences between the couple may be for

various reasons, but such reasons are camouflaged for

reasons which really did not happen so that the case is

brought within the purview of 498A of IPC. According to

the learned counsel for the petitioners, the reason for the
 -9-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022

dispute between the husband and wife is that, the couple

were staying at Mumbai and accused No.1 was working as

a Software Engineer. During COVID times, they had

returned to and when their child was

about six months old, the mother of the complainant died

at Bangalore, due to COVID. Accused No.1 did not agree

that the complainant and the children should travel to

Bangalore for the last rituals during COVID and that was

the reason, which resulted in the present complaint.

8. Be that as it may, it is a matter to be

considered at the time of the trial. What is relevant to note

in the present case is that, the FIR which is handwritten

by the complainant mainly allege that the harassment was

meted out by accused No.1 and 2. The involvement of

accused Nos. 3 to 10 is remote. Accused Nos. 3 to 10 were

not residing at Mumbai where the couple lived. It is

evident that accused Nos. 3 to 10 are the residents of

and such

other places. None of them were residing at the place of

 - 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022

residence of accused No.1. Therefore, the involvement of

accused Nos. 3 to 10 in the alleged harassment meted out

to the complainant is not forthcoming either from the FIR

or from the investigation papers. Such involvement of

accused Nos. 3 to 10 is only in the form of omnibus

allegations against them and specific details of their

harassment is not narrated.

9. Therefore, in the light of the observations made

by the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan kausar @

Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and other

referred supra, it would not be proper to continue the

prosecution of accused Nos.3 to 10. The gist of the

allegations made in the complaint with specific details is

only available as against accused Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore,

the petition deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the

following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed in part.

 - 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022

(ii) The proceedings in Crime No 133/2021

registered by Basavakalyan Town P.S. for the offences

punishable under Sections 341, 504, 498A read with

Section 34 of IPC now pending in CC No.6/2022 on the

file of Civil Judge and JMFXC, Basavakalyan, so far as

petitioner Nos. 3 to 10 are concerned is quashed.

(iii) Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2/accused Nos. 1 and 2

shall face the trial before the trial Court.

Sd/-
JUDGE

tsn*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
CT:PK