Karnataka High Court
Mansingh vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:137
CRL.P No. 200682 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200682 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. MANSINGH S/O. LALU NAYAK,
AGE 30 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
2. LALU NAYAK S/O. MANSINGH NAYAK,
AGE 61 YEARS, OCC.NIL,
3. PARVATIBAI W/O. LALU NAYAK,
AGE 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
ALL R/O H.NO.2-876, SUGALI COLONY,
NEAR ANJANEYA SWAMI TEMPLE,
Digitally signed CHILAKALURIPET, H/O PURUSHOTHA PATNAM
by GUNTUR, ANDRA PRADESH - 522 616.
SHIVALEELA ...PETITIONERS
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI (BY SRI SURAJ BHAVIKATTI, ADV. FOR
SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BHALKI TOWN POLICE STATION
TQ. BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR.
REPRESENTED BY
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH - 585 102.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:137
CRL.P No. 200682 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. PADMA W/O. MANSINGH NAYAK,
AGE 34 YEARS, OCC. ASST. MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, BHALKI.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NEAR PATIL HOSPITAL
KHANDRE GALLI, BHALKI,
TQ.BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR - 585 328.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.
528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE
CRIMINAL PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO
QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.2045/2024
PENDING FILE BEFORE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BHALKI
ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.0262/2023 REGISTERED BY BHALKI
TOWN P.S. DIST. BIDAR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 498(A), 323, 504 AND 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF
IPC AND 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961 AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.2045/2024 pending on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Bhalki, arising out of Crime No. 262/2023 registered by Bhalki Town Police for the offences punishable under -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:137 CRL.P No. 200682 of 2025 HC-KAR Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'the D.P.Act').
2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 23.12.2023 before respondent No.1-Police alleging that she is working as an Assistant Manager in SBI Bank, Bhalki, Bidar District. Herself and petitioner No.1/accused No.1 one Mansingh got married on 28.10.2023 at Andhra Pradesh. Accused No.1 was a software engineer by profession. It is further alleged in the complaint that at the time of marriage, the complainant's parent gave Rs.11,00,000/- and 4 tolas of gold and also household articles to accused No.1 as dowry. After the marriage, accused No.1 and the complainant stayed together for some time. Thereafter, accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 3/ petitioner Nos.2 and 3 i.e. the in-laws of the complainant started to harass the complainant both physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- by abusing her in a filthy language -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:137 CRL.P No. 200682 of 2025 HC-KAR and also threatened her with dire consequences. As such, she lodged a complaint before the respondent-police against the petitioners. On the strength of the said complaint, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.262/2023 dated 23.12.2023 against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences. After the registration of FIR, respondent No.1-police, conducted investigation and laid charge-sheet against the petitioners by arraying them as accused Nos.1 to 3. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners pray to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2045/2024.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Despite service of notice to respondent No.2, she remained absent.
4. Apart from urging several contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners primarily contented that a false complaint has been foisted against the petitioners by respondent No.2 out of personal vengeance. She has -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:137 CRL.P No. 200682 of 2025 HC-KAR also filed a divorce case in HMOP No.131/2024 before the Senior Civil Judge Court at Sathupally, Khammam District, Telangana State. However, with sole intention to harass the petitioners, she has filed this false complaint before respondent No.1-Police. He also contended that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 i.e. accused Nos.2 and 3 are residing at Chilakaluripet, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh and no point of time they resided along with respondent No.2 and accused No.1 at Bhalki. To substantiate the said aspect, the petitioners placed Aadhaar card of petitioner No.2 and 3. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contented that in the charge sheet materials, there is a clear prima facie case made out against petitioners. The complainant being the employer of the bank, the petitioners demanded an additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- by harassing the complainant both physically and mentally. As such, the proceedings cannot -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:137 CRL.P No. 200682 of 2025 HC-KAR be quashed against the petitioners. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submission made by the learned counsel for respective parties so also perused the charge sheet materials.
7. As could be gathered from records, it is not in dispute that petitioner No.1 and the complainant are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2023 at Andhra Pradesh and they both were working and residing in a rented house at Bhalki. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 being the in-laws of complainant are the resident of Chilakaluripet, Dist: Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. On careful perusal of the documents, Aadhaar card i.e., the address proof placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same depicts that the petitioners No.2 and 3 are the residents of Chilakaluripet, Dist:
Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. Additionally, on perusal of the statement of witnesses in the charge sheet, except some omnibus allegations made against the petitioner Nos. 2 -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:137 CRL.P No. 200682 of 2025 HC-KAR and 3, there are no such prima facie materials forthcoming that they have involved in the matrimonial affairs of accused No.1 and complainant. The prosecution also failed to collect any material that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 i.e., accused Nos. 2 and 3 were resided in the rented house of accused No.1 and the complainant at Bhalki. 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 trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:137 CRL.P No. 200682 of 2025 HC-KAR 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. In the instant case, on perusal of the entire charge sheet materials, except there are omnibus allegations made against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3, there are no such reliable piece of evidence placed by the Investigating Officer against them, when admittedly they are the resident of Andhra Pradesh. In such circumstances, in my considered view, the continuation of proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is a sheer abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, the proceedings against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are liable to be quashed. However, accused No.1/petitioner No.1 being the husband of complainant, since there are prima facie materials are forthcoming -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:137 CRL.P No. 200682 of 2025 HC-KAR against him, even in the complaint and the charge sheet materials, the proceedings cannot be quashed against him at this stage. The allegation made against him in the charge sheet has to be tested in a detailed trial. As such, the criminal petition allowed in part. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(a) The Criminal Petition is allowed in part.
(b) The proceedings in C.C.No.2045/2024 pending on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Bhalki, arising out of Crime No. 262/2023 registered by Bhalki Town Police for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P Act, in respect of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are hereby quashed.
(c) The Criminal Petition is dismissed against petitioner No.1 i.e. accused No.1.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE SDU,MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT:RJ