Karnataka High Court
Smt. C Geetha @ Shobha vs State By on 2 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5854
CRL.P No. 15016 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15016 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SMT. C.GEETHA @ SHOBHA
W/O K.R.SAMPATHKUMAR
D/O R.N.CHALUVARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT KACHANAHALLI
KASABA HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123
PRESENTLY WORKING
R/O RAJAGERE VILLAGE
SONDALAGERE POST
HUTRIDURGA HOBLI
Digitally KUNIGAL TALUK
signed by
SANJEEVINI J TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 126.
KARISHETTY
Location: High ...PETITIONER
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI MANU SHANKAR S. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION
NELAMANGALA TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN - 562 123.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5854
CRL.P No. 15016 of 2025
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 01.
2. SRI NARAYANAMURTHY
S/O RANGACHAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT KACHANAHALLI VILLAGE
BOODIHAL POST
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123
AND WORKING AS A TEACHER
PRIMARY SCHOOL, GOLLAHALLI THANDYA
GOWRIBIDANUR ROAD
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
16.07.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA IN C.C. NO. 9/2010, WHEREBY THE
LEARNED MAGISTRATE HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 319 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 READ WITH SECTION
358 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA
(BNSS).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:5854
CRL.P No. 15016 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner - complainant is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
"a. Set aside the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala in C.C.No.9/2010, whereby, the learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), b. Allow the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by directing that respondent No.2 be impleaded as accused No.5 in C.C.No.9/2010 and be tried together with the other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with 3 & 4 of D.P.Act.
c. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard Sri Manu Shankar S.S., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
3. The petitioner - complainant registers a complaint on 30.08.2009, for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act, 1961. The -4- NC: 2026:KHC:5854 CRL.P No. 15016 of 2025 HC-KAR police after investigation have filed the charge sheet only against accused Nos.1 to 4.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused No.5 has been dropped from the array of accused, while filing the charge sheet by the Officer in-charge of the police station. Accused No.5 is the family member of accused Nos.1 to 4. The trial progresses and reaches the fag end. At that point in time, the petitioner files an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and wanting that accused No.5 to be dragged back into the web of crime. The concerned Court in terms of the impugned order dated 16.07.2025, rejects the application on the score that there was no warrant to draw any other member of the family into the web of proceedings, that too, in a charge sheet that was filed in the year 2009 and the proceedings coming to the fag end in the year 2022. While the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to draw any accused that has been dropped cannot be questioned, but the procedure that is adopted therein, is necessarily to be followed.
5. The concerned Court by the following order has rejected the application:
-5-NC: 2026:KHC:5854 CRL.P No. 15016 of 2025 HC-KAR "2. It is the submission of the applicant, that though initially F.I.R., was registered against the 5 persons, for the offences punishable U/s 498(A), 506 of I.P.C., and U/s 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, at the time of filing of charge sheet, accused No.5 was left out.
However the proposed accused by name Narayanamurthy S/o Rangachar is brother of accused No.1 and 4 and another S/o accused No.2 and 3.
3. Further according to prosecution at the time of examination in chief of CW-1, recorded on 15.09.2021, she has deposed that along with other accused, the proposed accused has also subjected her to physical and mental harassment and has thrown her out of matrimonial house along with her cloths. Hence prays to allow the application.
4. On the other hand, the proposed accused appeared through his counsel and filed detailed objection, wherein he has taken contention that the present application has been filed with ill - intention by defacto complainant, though there is no sufficient materials to proceed against the proposed accused.
5. Further according to proposed accused, the prosecution has not provided reasons, statements and other connected materials to the proposed accused so that he can filed his objection effectively.
6. Further according to proposed accused, initially the defacto complainant has filed complaint against accused No.1 to 5 including proposed accused herein in crime No.746/2009 and after detailed investigation, the complainant police have filed charge sheet only against accused No.1 to 4 and proposed accused was left out.
7. Further the charge sheet has been filed on 07.10.2009 itself and the defacto complainant has not challenged the filing of final report till the date of present application, that is till 01.04.2022. Now the prosecution has filed present application only based upon the false statement of defacto complainant.
8. Further according to proposed accused, the PW-1 has deposed her examination in chief keeping vengeance in her mind and she has deposed falsely before the court, where as the prosecution has misconstrued the procedure -6- NC: 2026:KHC:5854 CRL.P No. 15016 of 2025 HC-KAR provided for impleading proposed accused. Hence prays to reject the application.
9. Heard both side counsel perused materials available on record.
10. The following points arise for my consideration:
POINTS
1."Whether the prosecution has made out grounds to allow application filed U/s Sec. 319 of Cr.P.C?
2. What order ?
11. My answer to the above points are;
Point No.1 : In the Negative, Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following.
REASONS
12. Point No.1: The present application has been filed by the prosecution to implead proposed accused as accused No.5, based upon the statement given by PW-1 during her examination in chief, wherein she has contended that proposed accused has also subjected her to mental harassment and has thrown her cloths out of matrimonial house.
13. On the other hand the proposed accused contended that though the charge sheet has been filed in the year 2009 itself till 01.04.2022, the defacto complainant has not challenged charge sheet and only in order to harass the proposed accused, under vengeance she has deposed against him and the application filed by the prosecution is misconceived one, hence prayed to reject the application.
14. At the time of hearing the prosecution relied upon Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India between Manjith Singh V/s State of Haryana reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4274 and contended that "the word "evidence" as used U/s 319 of Cr.P.C includes documents and materials under Indian Evidence Act. Under such circumstances statement of prosecution -7- NC: 2026:KHC:5854 CRL.P No. 15016 of 2025 HC-KAR witnesses includes statements given by them, during examination in chief and based upon examination in chief of witnesses, even before subjecting them to cross examination, if Court is satisfied of truthfulness, application U/s 319 can be allowed.
On the other hand the counsel for proposed accused relied upon Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hardeep Singh V/s State of Panjab and Others reported in AIR 2014 Supreme Court 1400,
ii) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sartaj Singh V/s state of Haryana and another etc., in Criminal appeal numbers 298299 of 2021, and
iii) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mani Pushpak Joshi V/s State of Uttarkhand and another reported in ABC 2020(I) 17 SC and contended that the degree of satisfaction which required for excise of power U/s 319 of Cr.P.C, is something nearer to seems, as U/s Sec.319(1) of Cr.P.C, statute uses the word "appear" which means if not synonymous with proved, it is something nearer to seems. However discretionary power is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases were the circumstances of the case so warrants or there are strong and cogent evidences against a person from the evidence lead before the Court. Hence power U/s 319 should be exercised sparingly and not in a casual manner.
15. In the light of aforesaid case laws relied by the prosecution and proposed accused, when I perused materials available on record. In the complaint dated 30.08.2009, the complainant has made similar allegation against the proposed accused stating he has thrown her out of matrimonial house along with her cloths.
16. However on further perusal of the records, it has been noticed that in her re-statement given on 31.08.2009, in page No.2 at paragraph No.3 in last 3 lines, the complainant/PW-1 herein has stated that the proposed accused has not given any trouble to her and it -8- NC: 2026:KHC:5854 CRL.P No. 15016 of 2025 HC-KAR is Annaiah Swamy who has thrown her cloths out of matrimonial house and not the proposed accused.
17. As observed above the said statement was given next day immediately after lodging of complaint and after investigation, jurisdictional police have filed charge- sheet only against accused No.1 to 4. Whereas examination in chief of PW-1 was recorded on 15.09.2021 i.e., after laps of nearing to 12 years. Under such circumstances only based upon the examination in chief of PW-1, which has not been subjected to cross examination, application cannot be allowed at this stage. Hence I answered point No.1 in the Negative.
18. Point No.2: In view of above findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The application filed by the prosecution Under Sec.319 of Cr.P.C., is here by rejected."
On a perusal of the order of rejection of the application, the reasons so rendered by the concerned Court to reject the application would not warrant any interference, for the reason that the charge sheet was filed on 07.10.2009 and the complainant has filed the application on 01.04.2022, 13 years after the filing of the charge sheet, though the complainant was completely aware that accused No.5 had been dropped from the array of accused.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to defend the filing of the application on the score that the -9- NC: 2026:KHC:5854 CRL.P No. 15016 of 2025 HC-KAR summons is issued for the first time in the year 2022, for a charge sheet and cognizance that was taken in the year 2009.
Be that as it may.
7. Accused No.5 being other member of the family cannot be drawn into the web of the proceedings, which is today a settled principle of law, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v.
STATE OF BIHAR1, wherein, it is held as follows:
"Issue involved
10. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the appellants and respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the appellant in-laws are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed?
11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498-AIPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as Section 498-AIPC as instruments to settle 1 (2022)6 SCC 599 or (2022 SCC Online SC 162)
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5854 CRL.P No. 15016 of 2025 HC-KAR personal scores against the husband and his relatives.
12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. [Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472: (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 301] , has observed : (SCC pp. 478-79, para 14) "14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act 46 of 1983. The expression "cruelty" in Section 498-A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. [Explanation to Section 498-A.] It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualised. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement."
13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273: (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4) "4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5854 CRL.P No. 15016 of 2025 HC-KAR disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."
14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36) "32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498- AIPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined 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 fibre, peace and tranquillity 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 visualised 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
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5854 CRL.P No. 15016 of 2025 HC-KAR majority of these complaints. The tendency of 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 complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful."
15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741: (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21) "21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para 12) '12. ... There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5854 CRL.P No. 15016 of 2025 HC-KAR suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts.' The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes."
16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6) "6. ... The courts 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 instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."
17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in- laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5854 CRL.P No. 15016 of 2025 HC-KAR
18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that "all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy". Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.
19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR Respondent 1 i.e. the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the learned Principal Judge, Purnea, to not harass the respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 1-4-2019, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11-12-2017.
20. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the appellant in-laws would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5854 CRL.P No. 15016 of 2025 HC-KAR
21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through 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."
(Emphasis supplied) In that light, even if the summons is issued in the year 2022, that would not mean that accused No.5, a distant relative who had been dropped from the array of accused in 2009, be permitted to be dragged into the web of proceedings in the year 2026. Therefore, the law being clear as held by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment, the order impugned would not warrant any interference.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition lacking in merit, stands, dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6