Karnataka High Court
Yamanappa S/O Ningabasappa Ambiger vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 October, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14779
CRL.P No. 103681 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103681 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. YAMANAPPA S/O NINGABASAPPA AMBIGER,
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: RTD GOVT SERVANT,
R/O: SADANKERI, GOURAV PARK,
DHARWAD- 580007.
2. SMT. MALA W/O YAMANAPPA AMBIGER,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: SADANKERI, GOURAV PARK,
DHARWAD- 580007.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V.P. VADAVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY CITY WOMAN P.S.
Digitally signed by
REP BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
VISHAL NINGAPPA DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD- 580007.
PATTIHAL
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, 2. SMT. DEEPA W/O SANTOSH KUMAR AMBIGER,
Dharwad
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O: YARAGATTI, TQ: RAMDURGA,
DIST: BELAGAVI- 590002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1,
SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., IS
PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN REGISTRATION OF
CR.NO.04/2023 BY THE CITY WOMAN P.S. DHARWAD DATED
02.02.2023 AND CHARGESHEET FOR THE OFFENCES
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14779
CRL.P No. 103681 of 2023
HC-KAR
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A), 504, 34 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF LEARNED IIND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DHARWAD IN CC NO. 577/2023 WITH HEAVY COST IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner's mother-in-law and father-in-law are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.577/2023 instituted against them for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.V.P.Vadavi for the petitioners, learned AGA Sri.T.Hanumareddy for the respondent-
State and the learned counsel Sri.Neelendra D.Gunde appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:
The 2nd respondent is the complainant, wife of accused No.1, who is not before this Court. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3, the mother-in-law and father-in-law. The marriage of the accused No.1 and the complainant, 2nd respondent takes place on 03.05.2021 and the relationship between the two appears to have floundered and floundering of the relationship, -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14779 CRL.P No. 103681 of 2023 HC-KAR wife instituted several proceedings one such proceeding is the registration of a crime in Crime No.4/2023 for the afore-quoted offences against the accused, husband and several other members of the family. The police conduct investigation and dropped the others and filed a charge sheet against the mother-
in-law, father-in-law and the husband. The filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that a perusal of the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17 would not indicate any offences against these petitioners while the offences are completely quoted against the accused No.1, husband. The learned counsel submits that the permitting further proceedings against the mother-in-law and father-in-law would become contrary to law.
5. The learned counsel Sri.Neelendra D.Gunde appearing for the respondent No.2 would submit that the mother-in-law and father-in-law also are alleged of certain torture which is clearly brought out in Column No.17 of the charge sheet. Therefore this Court should not interfere with the -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14779 CRL.P No. 103681 of 2023 HC-KAR said findings and it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial along with the accused No.1.
6. The learned AGA would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by both the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts linked in the chain of events are not in dispute, they are a matter of record. The relationship between the accused No.1 and the complainant flounders and the complainant registers a crime before the jurisdictional police in Crime No.4 of 2023 for offences as afore-quoted including the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Since the entire issue triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint, which reads as follows:
"UÉ Police Inspector, Bailhongal.
F ¢ªÀ¸À ¢£ÁAPÀ: 13/01/2013 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÁ« f¯Éè ¨ÉÊ®ºÉÆAUÀ® & zsÁgÀªÁqÀ PS CR No. 05/2023 ¢AzÀ ºÀ¢ÝAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¥ÉÇðøï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ ºÀÄzÁ£ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ §AzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß G¥À£À£ÀUÀgÀ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ PÀ®A 498(A) 504 R/W 34 IPC & PÀ®A 3, 4 DP Act 1961 gÀrAiÀÄ°è UÀAmÉUÉ zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ CzÉ.
¸À» ¥ÉÇÃ°Ã¸ï ¸À¨ï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï (ºÉZÀÄѪÀj) -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14779 CRL.P No. 103681 of 2023 HC-KAR £Á£ÀÄ ¢Ã¥Á ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀ CA©UÉÃgÀ ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì: 37 ªÀµÀð eÁw: »AzÀÆ CA©UÉÃgÀ GzÉÆåÃUÀ: ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ®¸À ¸Á: ¸ÁzsÀ£ÀPÉÃj zsÁgÀªÁqÀ PÁ¼É ¥Áèmï »AzÉ ºÁ° ¨ÁUÀªÁ£À ¨Á¼À ¨ÉÊ®ºÉÆAUÀ® §gÉzÀÄPÉÆqÀĪÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢ K£ÉAzÀgÉ 9880826986.
£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄð£À «¼Á¸ÀzÀ gÀºÀªÁ¹ EzÀÄÝ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ EgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£ÀUÉ ¢:
¸ÀzÀj ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß 3/5/2021 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä PÀÆrPÉÆAqÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄ»jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ°è zsÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ F ¢ªÀ¸À ¢£ÁAPÀ: ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀ AiÀĪÀÄ£À¥Àà CA©UÉÃgÀ EªÀ¤UÉ PÉÆlÄÖ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ 30/10/2022 £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀqÉ £ÀÄr°PÉÌ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ £À£ßÀ UÀAqÀ£À 1245 UÀAmÉUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ PÉêÀ® 20 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ ¹éÃPÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ZÉ£ÁßVzÀÝgÀÄ. vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀ AiÀĪÀÄ£À¥Àà CA©UÉÃgÀ £À£Àß ªÀiÁ£À CzÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÊ®ºÉÆAUÀ® AiÀĪÀÄ£À¥Àà ¤AUÀ§¸À¥Àà CA©UÉÃgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CvÉÛ ªÀiÁ¯Á AiÀĪÀÄ£À¥Àà CA©UÉÃgÀ £Á¢¤ CPÀ̪éÀ 267/2012 PÀ®A AiÀĪÀÄ£À¥Àà CA©UÉÃgÀ (¸ÀĪÀiÁ. ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À PÀqÀPÉÆüÀ) PÀÆrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥Àæw¢£À £À£ÀUÀ J¤Ã£ÀÄ 498(J), 504 R/W- £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£É ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ ¤£Àß vÀªÀgÀĪÀģɬÄAzÀ 2 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 10 34 DPÉÖö £ÉÃzÀPÉÌ vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á CAvÀ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀ ºÀwÛzÀgÄÀ . DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt CªÀjUÉ »ÃUÉ®è ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃr ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ PÁ®PÉÌ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀÄÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÝ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹PÉÆAqÉ£ÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ CAvÀ C£Àß®Ä CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ E£ÀÆß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAvÀ PÉʬÄAzÀ ºÉÆr§r ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. F §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ¸ÉÆêÀÄ¥Àà UÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀÅvÀæ¥àÀ PÁzÉÆ½î ºÁUÀÆ ¸À» vÁ¬Ä zÀƯÁ ¸ÉÆêÀÄ¥Àà PÀzÉÆæ½î EªÀjUÉ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄzÀ ¦.J¸ï.L(PÁ.¸ÀÄ.) ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÀðgÁzÀ 1) VÃvÁ fêÀ¥Áà zsÀgÉ£ÀߪÀgÀ vÁ: ¸ÀªÀzÀwÛ EªÀjUÉ PÀgÉzÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨ÉÊ®ºÉÆAUÀ® £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ §Ä¢Ý jÃw ºÉýzÀgÄÀ ¸ÀºÀ CªÀgÄÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ £À£ÀUÉ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ©nÖgÀ°®è. DzÀgÆ À ¸À»vÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¨Á¼Éé ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢zÀ CªÀgÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀ vÁæ¸À vÁ¼ÀÄvÀÛ C°èAiÉÄà EzÉÝ£ÀÄ. »ÃVzÁÝUÀ ¸ÀÄ£É wAUÀ¼À §gÀ®Ä CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ PÉÆlÖgÄÀ . £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÉãÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä §gÀ°®è. £Á£ÀÄ UÀ©üðtÂAiÀiÁzÀ §UÉÎ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ w½¹zÀgÆ À ¸ÀºÀ CªÀgÉãÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÀUÀ°®è. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀgÀĪÀÄ£ÉAiÀįÉèà EzÀÝ£ÄÀ .
»ÃVzÁÝUÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 28/3/2022 gÀAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÉÊ®ºÉÆAUÀ® zsÀ£ÀéAvÀj D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è ºÀÄnÖzÀ¼ÀÄ. £À£ÀUÉ ºÀÄnÖzÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ zÉÊ»PÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ C¸Àé¸ÜÀ ¼ÁVzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀ½UÉ CzÀgÀ G¥ÀZÁgÀPÁÌV £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄÄ ¨É¼ÀUÁ« PÉ.J¯ï.E D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ MAiÀÄÄÝ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ C°è £À£ÀßUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 6 wAUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ G¥ÀZÁgÀºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ CªÀ¼À G¥ÀZÁgÀPÁÌV D¸ÀàvÉæ ªÉZÀÑ 4 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä RZÁðVzÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄÄ ¨sÀj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F §UÉÎ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ºÁUÀÄ UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ ºÉýzÀgÆ À ¸ÀºÀ CªÀgÄÀ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ §AzÀÄ £À£ÀUÁUÀ°, £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÁUÀ° ºÉÆ«¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ D¸ÀàvæɬĪÀÄzÀ r¸ÁÖdð ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀgÀĪÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÉÛãÉ. EzÀĪÀgÉUÉ £À£ßÀ UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä §gÀzÀÝjAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30/8/2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 4 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ CPÀÌ gÁeÉñÀéj ªÀĺÉñÀ ºÀAa£ÀªÄÀ ¤ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ¸ÀÆÛgɪÀé CrªÉ¥Àà ¨Ád¥ÀàUÉÆüÀ ¸Á: ªÀÄÄ£ÀªÀ½î ºÁUÀÆ VÃvÁ fêÀ¥Àà zsÀgÀ£ßÀ ªÀgÀ ¸Á: ¨É¼ÀUÁ« ¥ÀgÀ±ÀÄgÁªÀÄ ¨Á®¥Àà ¹UÀ£ÀªÀgÀ ¸Á: AiÀÄgÀgÀhÄ«ð PÀÆrPÉÆAqÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ°ègÄÀ ªÀ £À£ßÀ UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV PÉüÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ EAvÀºÀ C£ÁgÉÆÃUÀå ªÀÄUÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¨ÉÃqÀ. ¤Ã£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀ¨ÉÃqÀ. MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É §AzÀgÉ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §AUÁgÀ vÉUÉzÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ¨ÉÆøÀr CAvÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£É M¼ÀUÀqÉ ¸ÀºÀ PÀgÉzÄÀ PÉƼÀîzÉ MzÀgÁr ºÉÆgÀVAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ PÀ¼ÀĹzÀÄÝ £ÁªÀÅ £ÉÃgÀªÁV £ÀªÀÄä vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. E°èªÀgÉUÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ §AzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ JPÀgÉzÀPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÁÛ£ÀAvÀ w½zÀÄ £À£ßÀ vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝgÀÆ CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ PÀgÉ°PÉÌ §A¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. PÁgÀt ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀt & §AUÁgÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ¨Á CAvÀ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV, zÉÊ»PÀªÁV QgÀÄPÀļÀ vÁæ¸À PÉÆlÖ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ
1) ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀ AiÀĪÀÄ£À¥Àà CA©UÉÃgÀ 2) ªÀiÁªÀ, AiÀĪÀÄ£À¥Àà ¤AUÀ§¸À¥àÀ CA©UÉÃgÀ 3) CvÉÛ, ªÀiÁ¯Á AiÀĪÀÄ£À¥Àà CA©UÉÃgÀ 4) £Á¢¤ CPÀ̪Àé AiÀĪÀÄ£À¥Àà CA©UÉÃgÀ (¸ÀĪÀiÁ ªÀÄ.
-6-NC: 2025:KHC-D:14779 CRL.P No. 103681 of 2023 HC-KAR PÀqÀPÉÆüÀ) ¸Á: J®ègÀÆ ¸ÁzsÀ£ÀPÉÃj zsÁgÀªÁqÀ EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £À£ÀßzÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢ EzÀÄÝ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä «£ÀAw.
¸ÀܼÀ:À ¨ÉÊ®ºÉÆAUÀ® vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹,
¢: 30.10.2022 ¸À»
EzÀgÀ°è ¨É¼ÀUÁ« f¯Éè ¨ÉÊ®ºÉÆAUÀ® PS ¢AzÀ ºÀ¢ÝAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É zsÁgÀªÁqÀ G¥À£ÀUÀgÀ PS UÉ §A¢zÀÝ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß F ¢ªÀ¸À zsÁgÀªÁqÀ G¥À£ÀUÀgÀ PS ¢AzÀ ºÀ¢ÝAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁ£Àå ¥Éǰøï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ ºÀÄ-zsÁ £ÀUÀgÀgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ §AzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ»¼Á PS - ºÀÄ-zsÁ UÀÄ£Áß £ÀA. 4/2023 PÀ®A 498 (a) 504 R/W 34 IPC 3 & 4 DP Act £ÉÃzÀÝPÉÌ ¢: 2/2/2023 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 9:45 UÀAmÉUÉ zÁR°¹zÉ.
¸À» ªÀÄ»¼Á C¹¸ÀÖAmï ¸À¨ï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï ªÀÄ»¼Á ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ, ºÀħâ½î-zsÁgÀªÁqÀ"
9. The police conduct investigation and filed a charge sheet against the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3, the husband, mother-
in-law and father-in-law. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17, reads as follows:
"ºÀħâ½î-zsÁgÀªÁqÀ £ÀUÀgÀ ªÀÄ»¼Á ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ¸ÀASÉå:04/2023 PÀ®: 498(J), 504, ¸ÀºÀPÀ®A 34 L¦¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 & 4 r.¦ DPÀë £ÉÃqÀÌgÀ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ PÁ®A £ÀA. 17. £ÉÃzÀÝPÉÌ ¥ÀÅgÀªÀuÉ.
EzÀgÀ°èAiÀÄ WÀl£ÉAiÀÄÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ G¥À£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ºÀ¢ÝAiÀÄ ¸ÁzsÀ£ÀPÉÃj zsÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è dgÀÄVzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
EzÀgÀ°èAiÀÄ DgÉÆæ £ÀA 1 ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ UÀAqÀ, 2 ªÀiÁªÀ, 3 CvÉÛ, 4 £Á¢¤ EzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ EzÀgÀ°èAiÀÄ ¦gÁåzÀzÁgÀ½UÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£É ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ ¤£À£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀģɬÄazÀ 2 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄºÀt ºÁUÀÆ 10 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á CAvÁ PÉʬÄAzÀ ºÉÆr §r ªÀiÁr zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV vÁæ¸ï ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ C®èzÉÃ, ¦gÁå¢zÁgÀ¼ÀÄ vÀ£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁV¤AzÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ CªÀ½UÉ PÀgÉAiÀÄ®Ä §gÀzÉà EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ ¦gÁå¢zÁgÀ¼ÀÄ CzÀ£ÀÄß PÉüÀ®Ä ¢£ÁAPÀ:30/08/2023 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 4:00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÁzsÀ£ÀPÉÃj zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ DgÉÆævÀgÉ®ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃj EzÀgÀ°èAiÀÄ ¦gÁå¢UÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀ¨ÉÃqÀ MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É §AzÀgÉ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀt ºÁUÀÆ §AUÁgÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ¨ÉÆøÀÄr CAvÁ CªÁZÀåªÁV ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÉƼÀUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉƼÀîzÉà MzÀgÁr ªÀģɬÄAzÀ zÀ©â ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁQzÀÄÝ CzÉ CAvÁ ªÀUÉÊgÉ zÀÆj£À°è £ÀªÄÀ Æ¢¹zÀAvÉ zÀÆj£À ¸ÁgÁA±ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÀÄ»¼Á ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ UÀÄ£Áß £ÀA.04/2022 PÀ®A:498(J), 504, ¸ÀºÀPÀ®A 34 L¦¹ & 3,4 r¦ DPÀÖ £ÉÃzÀÝgÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹PÉÆAqÀÄ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇtðUÉƽ¹ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14779 CRL.P No. 103681 of 2023 HC-KAR
10. A perusal of the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet would not indicate any overt act against these petitioners, mother-in-law and father-in-law, while the entire offences are alleged against the husband, accused No.1, who is not before the Court. Permitting further proceedings against the mother-in-law and father-in-law would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shobhit Kumar Mittal Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh1, has held as follows:
"15. Similarly, an offence is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC when a husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty, which may result in imprisonment for a term extending up to three years and a fine. The Explanation under Section 498A of the IPC defines "cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC to mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b) therein. The first limb of clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 498A of the IPC states that "cruelty" means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 498A of the IPC states that cruelty means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman.
Further, clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A of the IPC states that cruelty would also include harassment of the woman where such harassment is to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
16. Further, Section 3 of the Dowry Act deals with the penalty for giving or taking dowry. It states that any person 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2059 -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14779 CRL.P No. 103681 of 2023 HC-KAR who gives, takes, or abets the giving or taking of dowry shall face a punishment of imprisonment for a minimum term of five years and a fine not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the dowry, whichever is greater. Section 4 of the Dowry Act talks about the penalty for demanding dowry. It states that any person demanding dowry directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardians of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
17. The issue for consideration is whether, given the facts and circumstances of the present case and after examining the FIR, the High Court was right in refusing to quash the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 347 of 2023 dated 09.11.2023 under Section 323 and 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act, as against the appellant herein.
18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by complainant/respondent No. 2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that the husband and his family along with the accused/appellant herein mentally harassed her with a demand for dowry, the complainant/respondent No. 2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred or the details of the nature of demand or its particulars. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. Furthermore, the complainant/respondent No. 2 has failed to impress the Court as to how the alleged harassment has any proximate relationship to the said injury and nerve damage that she sustained, so as to punish her in-laws under Section 323 IPC. There is no remote or proximate act or omission attributed to the accused/appellant that implicates him or assigns him any specific role in the said FIR for the offence of hurt as defined under Section 319 IPC. Furthermore, merely stating that the accused/appellant has mentally harassed the complainant/respondent No. 2 with respect to a demand for dowry does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 498A of IPC specially in absence of any cogent material or evidence on record to substantiate the said allegations. The term "cruelty" cannot be established without specific instances. The tendency of invoking the aforesaid -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14779 CRL.P No. 103681 of 2023 HC-KAR provisions, without mentioning any specific detail, weakens the case of the prosecution and casts serious aspersions on the probability of the version of the complainant. Therefore, this Court cannot ignore the missing specifics in the FIR which is the basic premise for invoking the criminal machinery of the State. In such cases involving allegations of cruelty and harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against perpetrators in specific terms to initiate criminal proceedings against them. Therefore, mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specific details would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings against any person.
19. Courts have to be careful and cautious in dealing with complaints 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 law.
20. In this regard, it would be apposite to rely on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 ("Bhajan Lal") with particular reference to paragraph 102 therein, wherein this Court observed as hereunder:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power Under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Accused.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14779 CRL.P No. 103681 of 2023 HC-KAR (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the Accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
21. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial tests, we find that none of the offences alleged against the accused/appellant herein is made out. In fact, we find that the allegations of cruelty, mental harassment and voluntarily causing hurt against the accused/appellant herein are vague and general in nature and therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal squarely applies to the facts of this case. It is neither expedient nor in the interest of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14779 CRL.P No. 103681 of 2023 HC-KAR justice to permit the present prosecution emanating from the FIR to continue.
22. Furthermore, at this juncture, we find it appropriate to quote the observations of this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Bihar, (2025) 3 SCC 735 wherein it was observed:
"27. 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 particularised 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. We say so for the reason that while the complainant/respondent No. 2 has made vague and omnibus allegations against the accused/appellant herein, she has failed to justify the same before this Court. Such actions would create significant divisions and distrust among people, while also placing an unnecessary strain on the judicial system, particularly criminal courts.
xxx
30. 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 Page 22 of 26 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
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14779 CRL.P No. 103681 of 2023 HC-KAR 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 family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.
31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. The Apex Court was following its earlier order in Dara Lakshmi Narayana Vs.State of Bihar2. In the light of the issue standing answered by the judgment of the Apex Court as noted supra, permitting further proceedings against these petitioners, the mother-in-law and father-in-law, would 2 (2025) 3 SCC 735
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14779 CRL.P No. 103681 of 2023 HC-KAR undoubtedly become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the proceedings qua, the mother-in-law and father-in-law stands obliterated and any observations made in the course of the order would only become applicable to the case of the petitioners, the mother-in-law and father-in-law, would not become binding on any other accused before the concerned Court.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER a. Petition is allowed.
b. The proceedings in Crime No.4/2023 registered by City Woman Police Station, Dharwad dated 02.02.2023 and charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the file of learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad in C.C.No.577/2023 stand quashed, qua, the mother-in-law and father-in-law.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-GTB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61