Karnataka High Court
Prakash And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 14 February, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062
CRL.P No. 201264 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201264 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. PRAKASH S/O CHANDRAKANT PADSAVALI,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. KHAJURI VILLAGE,
TQ. ALAND, DIST. KALABURAGI,
NOW R/ AT KALABURAGI-585103.
2. LALITABAI W/O CHANDRAKANT PADSAVALI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KHAJURI VILLAGE, TQ. ALAND,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585314.
Digitally signed 3. CHANDRAKANT S/O HANAMANTH PADSAVALI,
by SHIVAKUMAR AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
HIREMATH R/O. KHAJURI VILLAGE, TQ. ALAND,
Location: HIGH DIST. KALABURAGI-585314.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 4. BHEEMASHANKAR S/O CHANDRAKANTH PADSAVALI,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. KHAJURI VILLAGE, TQ. ALAND,
DIST. KALABURAGI,
NOW AT MUMBAI-400059.
5. HANAMANTH S/O CHANDRAKANTH PADSAVALI,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. KHAJURI VILLAGE, TQ. ALAND,
DIST. KALABURAGI,
NOW AT KALABURAGI-585103.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062
CRL.P No. 201264 of 2024
6. NIKITHA W/O BHEEMASHANKAR PADSAVALI,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KHAJURI VILLAGE, TQ. ALAND,
DIST. KALABURAGI,
NOW AT MUMBAI-400059.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANTOSH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KALABURAGI WOMEN POLICE STATION,
KALABURAGI.
(REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH)-585107.
2. KAMALA W/O PRAKASH PADASAVALI,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. KHAJURI VILLAGE, TQ. ALAND,
DIST.KALABURAGI-585314.,
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SHARANAGOUDA V. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C (OLD) / U/SEC.
528 OF BNSS ACT (NEW) PRAYING TO QUASH THE
REGISTRATION OF CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.9506/2024
(CRIME NO.20/2024) REGISTERED BY THE KALABURGI WOMEN
POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE
HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS. 498(A),
323,504, 506 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC AND UNDER SEC 3 AND 4
OF DP ACT, AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE, JMFC, KALABURAGI AND PASS ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062
CRL.P No. 201264 of 2024
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) Accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.9506/2024, pending before the Court of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime No.20/2024, registered by Kalaburagi Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are before this Curt under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding in the aforesaid case as against them.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that general and omnibus allegations are made as against all accused persons. In the first information, it is stated that accused persons had thrown out respondent No.2 -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062 CRL.P No. 201264 of 2024 from her matrimonial house and thereafter, she was waiting for a period of four months in her parents house expecting that the accused persons would take back her. Since they had not taken her back, she had approached the police. He submits that for extraneous reasons with an intention to harass and coerce the accused persons, impugned criminal proceedings has been initiated. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 have opposed the petition. They submit that after the investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against all the accused persons, which would prima facie go to show that there is certain material to prosecute them for the alleged offences. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.
5. Perusal of the first information dated 03.05.2024 would go to show that the marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2 was performed about -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062 CRL.P No. 201264 of 2024 four years prior to the date of registration of FIR in the present case. It is alleged that initially for a period of three months, accused persons had taken care of respondent No.2 in her matrimonial house and thereafter, they started harassing and torturing her demanding additional dowry. Respondent No.2 has stated that on 01.01.2024, accused persons abused and assaulted her and threw her out of the matrimonial house for the reason that she had not brought additional dowry. Therefore, she was constrained to take shelter in her parents' house and though four months had passed thereafter, accused persons had not bothered to take her back and it is under these circumstances, she had approached the police. After completion of the investigation in the case, the police have filed charge sheet against the accused persons named in the FIR.
6. Perusal of the allegations found in the FIR as well as in the charge sheet would go to show that as against accused Nos.2 to 6, there are only general and -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062 CRL.P No. 201264 of 2024 omnibus allegations and the dispute primarily appears to be between accused No.1/petitioner and his wife/respondent No.2 herein. By making general and omnibus allegations, accused Nos.2 to 6/petitioner Nos.2 to 6 herein, who are the parents and siblings of accused No.1/petitioner No.1 herein, are also sought to be prosecuted for the alleged offences.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PREETI GUPTA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER1 has held as follows:
"32. It is matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts of our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined 1 (2010) 7 SCC 667 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062 CRL.P No. 201264 of 2024 or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact.
The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062 CRL.P No. 201264 of 2024 implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of TARBEZ KHAN ALIAS GUDDU & OTHERS VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER2 and in the case of SEENIVASAN VS THE STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE3, has observed that in the absence of specific allegations, which would attract the offences, an attempt to implicate the near relatives of the husband cannot be permitted.
2(2019)4 SCC 615 3 (2019)8 SCC 642 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062 CRL.P No. 201264 of 2024
9. This Court in the case of ASMA KHANUM @ NOOR ASMA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER4 has held that when the material on record would go to show that the accused, who are close relatives of husband, are married and residing separately and when the complaint lacks specific allegations so as to implicate the accused for the offences alleged against them, such criminal prosecution shall not be allowed to continue.
10. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, if the allegations found in the FIR and the charge sheet are scrutinized, I am of the view that there is no material to prosecute accused Nos.2 to 6/petitioner Nos.2 to 6 for the charge sheeted offences. Accordingly, following order is passed:
ORDER The criminal petition is partly allowed.4
2020(6) KAR.L.J.90
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1062 CRL.P No. 201264 of 2024 The Criminal petition is dismissed as against petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and it is allowed as against petitioner Nos.2 to 6/accused Nos.2 to 6.
The entire proceedings in C.C.No.9506/2024, pending before the Court of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime No.20/2024, registered by Kalaburagi Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as against petitioner Nos.2 to 6/accused Nos.2 to 6 stands quashed.
The Trial Court shall proceed further as against petitioner No.1/accused No.1 in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 CT:PK