Partly allowed¶65

Solomoonraj S/O Saimon Yamarti v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2025CRL.P/100887/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing; matrimonial cruelty and dowry case; omnibus allegations against husband's relatives; Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 149 IPC; Dowry Prohibition Act Sections 3 and 4; Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 relied on; misuse of Section 498-A IPC; wound certificates showing simple injuries; prima facie case against husband and accused No.5; C.C.No.1076/2022, III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi; Crime No.6/2022, Women Police Station, Hubballi-Dharwad; High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench; Justice Shivashankar Amaranavar.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed qua petitioner No.1 – accused No.1 and petitioner No.4 – accused No.5; petition allowed and proceedings in C.C.No.1076/2022 quashed qua petitioners Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 8 – accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 9. ¶65

Solomoonraj S/O Saimon Yamarti Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1076/2022 against petitioners Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 8 (accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 9), founded on omnibus allegations, are an abuse of process of law liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

The allegations made in the complaint of respondent No.2 against the petitioners are omnibus allegations.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

There is a prima facie case against petitioner No.1 – accused No.1 and petitioner No.4 – accused No.5 for the offences alleged against them, and there are no grounds made for quashing the proceedings against them.

¶56

Key takeaways

The proceedings against petitioners Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 8 – accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 9 in C.C.No.1076/2022 pending on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi are quashed.ratio¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by accused Nos.1, 3 to 9 seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.1076/2022 (III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi), arising from a charge sheet in Crime No.6/2022 of Women Police Station, Hubballi-Dharwad, registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 dated 13.01.2022 — wife of petitioner No.1, married on 05.05.2021 — for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging a dowry demand of Rs.2,00,000/- and ill-treatment. HELD: the allegations against petitioners Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 8 (accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 9) are omnibus allegations; relying on Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, the proceedings against them were quashed. As regards petitioner No.1 (accused No.1) and petitioner No.4 (accused No.5), the accusation that on 18.10.2021 they assaulted respondent No.2 and four of her relatives, with wound certificates showing simple injuries, disclosed a prima facie case; the petition was dismissed qua them. Petition partly allowed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6232 CRL.P No. 100887 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100887 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SOLOMOONRAJ S/O. SAIMON YAMARTI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: RAILWAY EMPLOYEE, R/O: CEMENT CHAWL, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD – 580 020.

¶10

SMT. RUTAMMA W/O. SIMOON YAMARTI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: CEMENT CHAWL, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD – 580 020.

¶11

SUJANAMMA @ SUJATA W/O. JAN TODATTI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD – 580 020.

¶12

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶13

JAN @ JOHN S/O. ALFRED TODATTI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD – 580 020.

¶14

SMT. RAJMANI W/O. UMESH NEESU, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: PAPER TOWN, BHADRAVATHI DIST: SHIMOGA – 577 302.

¶15

UMESH NEESU S/O. RANGAIAH NISU, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: PAPER TOWN,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6232 CRL.P No. 100887 of 2024

¶18

BHADRAVATHI, DIST: SHIMOGA – 577 302.

¶19

MARIYAMMA @ MARI W/O. VENKATIAH @ VENKATESH, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: PAPER TOWN, BHADRAVATHI, DIST: SHIMOGA – 577 302.

¶20

VENKATAIAH @ VENKATESH S/O. PRASAD, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: PAPER TOWN, BHADRAVATHI, DIST: SHIMOGA – 577 302.

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI. KIRANKUMAR CHATTIMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH WOMEN POLICE STATION HUBBALLI-DHARWAD CITY, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH – 580 007.

¶25

SMT. ROSEMARY W/O. SOLOMONRAJ YAMARTHY, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: H.NO.31, PACIFIC PARK, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI – 580 020.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1; SRI KUSHAL V. BOLMAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT) )

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 SEEKING TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE III ACJ AND JMFC, HUBBALLI, IN C.C. NO.1076/2022 FOR AN OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 323, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AS NULL AND VOID INSOFAR AS PETITIONER NO.1 TO 8/ACCUSED NOS.1, 3 TO 9 ARE CONCERNED AS NULL AND VOID IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6232 CRL.P No. 100887 of 2024

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

This petition filed by petitioners –accused Nos.1, 3

¶35

to 9 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1076/2022 pending on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for brevity) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as “D.P Act” for brevity).

¶36

Respondent No.2 has filed complaint on 13.01.2022 against petitioners and accused No.2 in Crime No.6/2022 of Women Police Station, Hubballi - Dharwad for aforesaid offences. The Police after investigation have filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 9 for aforesaid offences. On the basis of the said charge sheet, a case came to be registered in

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6232 CRL.P No. 100887 of 2024

¶39

C.C.No.1076/2022 pending on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi. The proceedings of the said case are sought to be quashed in this present petition by petitioners Nos.1 to 8 – accused Nos.1, 3 to 9.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for petitioners Nos. Nos.1 to 8 –accused Nos.1, 3 to 9 and learned AGA for respondent No.1 –State. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.

¶41

Learned counsel for petitioners Nos.1 to 8 – accused Nos.1, 3 to 9 would contend that there are no specific allegations against accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 9 and allegations alleged against them are omnibus allegations. He further submits that accused No. 2 is father in law of respondent No.2 and he is no more. He further submits that the proceedings against petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 8 -accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 9 is abuse of process of law. With these, he prays to allow the petition and quash the proceedings against

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6232 CRL.P No. 100887 of 2024

¶44

petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 8 -accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 9.

¶45

Learned AGA for respondent No.1 –State would contend that charge sheet records contain materials against all petitioners for offences alleged against them. Petitioner Nos.1 and 4 -accused Nos.1 and 5 have assaulted respondent No.2 and four others and they have sustained injuries. Wound certificates of injured indicate that they are assaulted and they have sustained injuries. With these, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶46

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused the charge sheet records.

¶47

Respondent No.2 is wife of petitioner No.1 – accused No.1 and their marriage had taken place on 05.05.2021. It is stated in the complaint that petitioners have looked after respondent No.2 well for period of 05 days and thereafter, petitioners told her that she is not good looking, there are pimples on the

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6232 CRL.P No. 100887 of 2024

¶49

face, she does not know cooking and house hold works, she has brought less dowry and abused her in filthy language. Petitioners are demanding dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and in that regard they are harassing and ill-treating her by not providing food. Considering the said allegations made in the complaint of respondent No.2, allegations against petitioners are omnibus allegations.

¶50

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs State of Bihar and Others¹ has observed thus:

¶51

“17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498 - A IPC 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

¶52

1 Reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6232 CRL.P No. 100887 of 2024

¶54

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.”

¶55

The accusation against petitioner No.1 –

¶56

accused 1 and petitioner No.4 –accused No.5 is that on 18.10.2021 they went to the house of respondent No.2 and asked her to give divorce and assaulted respondent No.2, her father, mother, aunt and her younger brother. The wound certificates enclosed with the charge sheet indicate that respondent No.2 –Rose Mery, Annamma (C.W.4) –mother of the respondent, Mery –wife of Jaykumar, Joseph (C.W.6) –father of respondent No.2, Anand –brother respondent No.2 have sustained simple injuries. Considering the said aspect, there is prima facie case against petitioner No.1 –accused No.1 and petitioner No.4 –accused No.5 for offences alleged against them. There are no grounds made for quashing

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6232 CRL.P No. 100887 of 2024

¶59

proceedings against petitioner No.1 –accused No.1 and

¶60

petitioner No.4 –accused No.5.

¶61

In the result, the following

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i) The petition filed by petitioner No.1 – accused No.1 and petitioner No.4 – accused No.5 is dismissed.

¶64

ii) The petition filed by petitioners Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 8–accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 9 is allowed.

¶65

iii) The proceedings against petitioners Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 8–accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 9 in C.C.No.1076/2022 pending on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi are quashed.

¶66

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶67

DSP CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Solomoonraj S/O Saimon Yamarti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Solomoonraj S/O Saimon Yamarti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinayaka Steels Vs the State of Karnataka

Jagadish S/O Mallappa Kumar, Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishalsingh S/O Vijaysing Chavan Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Shekharappa Shrigiri S/O Kalakappa Shrigiri Vs the State of Karnataka

Mangala Shrikanth Sogi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Veeranna S/O Prakash Asundi Vs Smt Sudha W/O Veeranna Asundi