Karnataka High Court
Shivaji And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 28 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:655
CRL.P No. 200609 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200609 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAJI S/O. BANSILA BANOT,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC. CENTRAL GOVT EMPLOYEE
NOW R/O RAMAGONDAL THERMAL POWER STATION,
(NTPC) POST. JYOTI NAGAR,
TQ PEDDAPALLI, DIST. KARIMANAGAR,
TELANGANA-505001.
2. BANSILAL S/O. MANIK BANOT
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
NOW R/O TIMMANAGAR TANDA,
MANDAL PITLAM, TQ BASWADA KAMAREDDY,
Digitally signed TELANGANA-503187.
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA 3. CHAWLABAI W/O. BANSILAL BANOT,
UDAGI OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
Location: HIGH NOW R/O TIMMANAGAR TANDA, MANDAL PITLAM
COURT OF TQ BASWADA KAMAREDDY, TELANGANA-503187.
KARNATAKA
4. RAMESH S/O. BANSILAL BANOT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
NOW R/O TIMMANAGAR TANDA,
MANDAL PITAM, TQ BASWADA KAMAREDDY,
TELANGANA-503187.
5. MARUNI W/O. RAMESH BANOT,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:655
CRL.P No. 200609 of 2023
HC-KAR
OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
NOW R/O. TIMMANAGAR TANDA, MANDAL PITLAM
TQ. BASWADA KAMAREDDY, TELANGANA-503187.
6. SUDISH S/O. BANSILAL BANOT
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
NOW R/O TIMMANAGAR TANDA, MANDAL PITLAM
TQ. BASWAD KAMAREDDY, TELANGANA- 503187.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVI B PATIL., &
SMT. VEERANI V. NANDI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BHALKI RURAL PS
REP BY ITS ADDL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, KALABURAGI-585103.
2. ANITA W/O. SHIVAJI BANOT,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
NOW R/O BEERI (B) TANDA,
TQ BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR-585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME
NO. 154/2019 DATED 09.12.2019 AND CHARGE SHEET DATED
23.03.2020, CULMINATING IN C.C.NO.32/2021 BEING
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:655
CRL.P No. 200609 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners files a memo seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the petition in respect of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 i.e., accused Nos.1 to 3.
2. The memo is taken on record.
3. In view of the memo, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 i.e., accused Nos.1 to 3.
As regards petitioner Nos.4 to 6/accused Nos.4 to 6, the matter is taken up for consideration as under:
4. This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 6 in C.C.No.32/2021 (arising out of Crime No.154/2019 dated 09.12.2019) registered by Bhalki Rural Police, pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bhalki, Bidar, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506, 504, and -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:655 CRL.P No. 200609 of 2023 HC-KAR 406 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'the D.P. Act').
5. The facts of the case is that, in the year 2013, accused Nos.1 to 3 approached CWs.4 and 5 with forged divorce papers and made to believe that accused No.1 had obtained divorce by dissolving his first marriage. Accordingly, accused Nos.1 to 3 performed the second marriage. Thereafter, respondent No.2 started to reside along with accused No.1 in matrimonial home. The relationship between respondent No.2 with accused Nos.1 to 3 was cordial for a period of one year. Thereafter, she conceived. As such, accused Nos.1 to 3 harassed her for additional dowry and for abortion. However, she delivered a girl baby. Thereafter, the accused made the life of respondent No.2 miserable by giving both physical and mental torture. Later, respondent No.2 and her child were thrown out of house and threatened not to come back and constrained her to reside in her parental house. As such, -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:655 CRL.P No. 200609 of 2023 HC-KAR she lodged complaint before the respondent-Police against the petitioners and others, which came to be registered in Crime No.154/2019. After conducting investigation, the respondent-Police laid charge-sheet against the petitioners and others for the aforementioned offences by arraying these petitioners as accused Nos.4 to 6. Hence, this petition to quash the proceedings against petitioners- accused Nos.4 to 6.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
7. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners primarily contented that, on perusal of charge-sheet materials, absolutely no prima facie materials is placed against these petitioners. According to prosecution, these petitioners are brothers- in-law and co-sister of respondent No.2 and they are no way concerned about the alleged harassment meted out to -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:655 CRL.P No. 200609 of 2023 HC-KAR respondent No.2 or in the performance of second marriage with accused No.1.
8. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, these petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 6 are residing separately at Timmanagar Tanda, Mandal Pitlam, Baswada Kamareddy Taluk, Telangana and even according to the complaint and charge-sheet averments, accused Nos.1 to 3 approached the parents of respondent No.2 and by placing forged documents, they made them to believe that accused No.1 had got divorced from his first wife. In such circumstances, the proceedings against these petitioners is abuse of process of Court. Hence, prays to allow the petition.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the petition and contended that these petitioners being the brothers-in-law and co-sister of respondent No.2, they are equally participated in the crime by performing the marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1, knowing fully about the existence of his first -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:655 CRL.P No. 200609 of 2023 HC-KAR marriage by placing a forged divorce papers. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.
10. Learned High Court Government Pleader also opposed the petition and prays to dismiss the same.
11. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and documents available on record.
12. On careful perusal of the charge-sheet materials, it could be gathered that accused No.1 married respondent No.2 during the existence of his first marriage. During the marriage talk, accused Nos.1 to 3 visited the house of respondent No.2 and exhibited forged divorce paper and stated that accused No.1 had got divorced from his first wife and thereby made them to believe that accused No.1 was divorced. Accordingly, they performed the marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1.
13. After the marriage, accused Nos.1 to 3 harassed her for abortion and additional dowry. The -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:655 CRL.P No. 200609 of 2023 HC-KAR charge-sheet materials clearly reveal that accused Nos.1 to 3 are involved in the manipulation of forged customary divorce of decree and also in performing the second marriage. However, on perusal of the entire charge-sheet materials, there is no such specific overt act attributed against these petitioners, who are the in-laws of respondent No.2. Moreover, admittedly they are residing separately from the matrimonial home of respondent No.2.
14. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Subba Rao vs. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and Others reported in 2024 INSC 960, at paragraph No.6 held that, the Court should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped-in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instance of their involvement in the crime are made out. It is also settled position of law that if a person is made to face a criminal -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:655 CRL.P No. 200609 of 2023 HC-KAR trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. The Courts pose a duty to subject the allegation levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, whether there is any gain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arise from a matrimonial dispute.
15. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayan vs. State of Telangana reported in 2025 3 SCC 735, held in para Nos.25 and 28 as under:
"25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:655 CRL.P No. 200609 of 2023 HC-KAR allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.
28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:655 CRL.P No. 200609 of 2023 HC-KAR family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them."
16. In the instant case, a bare perusal of charge sheet materials clearly shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Apart from claiming that the husband i.e., accused No.1 and his family members mentally harassed her with a demand for dowry, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has not mentioned the time, date, place or a manner in which the alleged harassment occurred or the details of the nature of demand or its particulars. Therefore, the charge sheet lacks concrete and precise allegations. The term "cruelty" cannot be established without specific instance. The same weakens the case of the prosecution and casts serious doubt on the probability of the version of respondent No.2. The mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specific details would
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:655 CRL.P No. 200609 of 2023 HC-KAR not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings against any person.
17. It is settled position of law that Courts have to be careful and cautious in dealing with complaint and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial disputes, where the allegations have to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of Court.
18. In my considered view, continuation of criminal proceedings against these petitioners i.e., accused Nos.4 to 6 is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The Criminal Petition in respect of petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 is dismissed as withdrawn.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:655 CRL.P No. 200609 of 2023 HC-KAR ii. The Criminal Petition in respect of petitioner Nos.4 to 6/accused Nos.4 to 6 is allowed.
iii. The proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 6 in
C.C.No.32/2021 (Crime No.154/2019)
registered by Bhalki Rural Police, Bidar, for the offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 406, 506, 504 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, presently pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bhalki, Bidar, is hereby quashed.
iv. It is made clear that the proceedings shall continue in respect of petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 24 CT:RJ