Allowed¶89

Umadevi and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2025CRL.P/200024/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of matrimonial cruelty proceedings; S.498A, 504, 506 r/w S.149 IPC; omnibus allegations against in-laws; delay in lodging complaint (incident 15.03.2024, complaint 18.09.2024); petition under S.528 BNSS 2023 / S.482 CrPC; Kahkashan Kausar (2022) 6 SCC 599; Digumbar 2024 SCC Online SC 3836; Arnesh Kumar (2014) 8 SCC 273; Preeti Gupta (2010) 7 SCC 667; K. Subba Rao (2018) 14 SCC 452; Dara Lakshmi Narayana; dowry cash Rs.51,000/-; Crime No. 97/2024 Shahabad Town Police Station; C.C. No. 929/2024 Civil Judge and JMFC Shahabad; High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench; CRL.P No. 200024 of 2025; petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings in C.C No.929/2024 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC at Shahabad. ¶89

Umadevi and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the proceedings in C.C No.929/2024 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC at Shahabad.

¶89

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 929/2024 (arising from Crime No. 97/2024, Shahabad Town Police Station) against the petitioners, the in-laws of the complainant, for offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 IPC should be quashed, the allegations against them being omnibus and made to coerce settlement. +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

On careful reading of the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Court should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in crimes relating to matrimonial disputes.

¶82

Ratio / Principle

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.

¶82

Key takeaways

In the present case, the petitioners being the in-laws of the complainant, and the complaint having been registered on 18.09.2024 in respect of an incident alleged to have occurred on 15.03.2024, this is a fit case to quash the proceedings.ratio¶85

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench (S Rachaiah, J.), CRL.P No. 200024 of 2025, decided 06.03.2025 — Criminal petition under S.528 of BNSS, 2023 by four persons described as the in-laws of respondent No.2 (complainant Basamma) seeking quashing of C.C. No. 929/2024 (arising from Crime No. 97/2024, Shahabad Town Police Station) for alleged offences under Ss.498A, 504, 506 r/w S.149 IPC. Prosecution case: marriage on 23.05.2021 with dowry gifts and cash of Rs.51,000/-; harassment of the complainant; an incident on 15.03.2024 at her parents' house; complaint lodged on 18.09.2024 and charge sheet filed. Relying on Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 and Digumbar v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC Online SC 3836, the Court held that the husband's relatives should not be roped in on omnibus allegations unless specific instances of involvement are made out, noted the delay between the alleged incident and the registration of the complaint, and quashed the proceedings. Petition allowed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1483 CRL.P No. 200024 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200024 OF 2025

¶9

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. UMADEVI

¶12

W/O BHIMARAYA KONKLER, AGE:54 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. RAJATHADHRI, SRINIVASA NAGARA NILAYA, NEAR BEO OFFICER KOTE GAURIBIDANUR,

¶13

TQ. GOURIBIDANUR, DIST. CHIKKABALLAPUR-561208.

¶14

Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI MANJUNATH S/O BHIMARAYA KONKLER, AGE:22 YEARS, OCC: PVT. WORK, R/O. RAJATHADHRI NILAYA, SRINIVASA NAGARA, NEAR BEO OFFICER KOTE GAURIBIDANUR, TQ. GOURIBIDANUR, DIST. CHIKKABALLAPUR-561208.

¶16

SMT. MAHALAXMI D/O BHIMARAYA KONKLER, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: PVT. WORK, R/O. RAJATHADHRI NILAYA, SRINIVASA NAGARA, NEAR BEO OFFICER KOTE GAURIBIDANUR TQ. GOURIBIDANUR, DIST. CHIKKABALLAPUR-561208.

¶17

SRI BHIMARAYA S/O MALKAPPA KONKLER,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1483 CRL.P No. 200024 of 2025

¶19

AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. RAJATHADHRI NILAYA, SRINIVASA NAGARA, NEAR BEO OFFICER KOTE GAURIBIDANUR, TQ. GOURIBIDANUR, DIST. CHIKKABALLAPUR-561208.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH, SHAHABAD TOWN POLICE STATION, R/BY ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH, KALABURAGI-585102.

¶24

SMT. BASAMMA W/O NAGARAJ KONKLER, AGE:23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HONAGUNTA VILLAGE, TQ. SHAHABAD, DIST. KALABURAGI-585228.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP FOR R1 SRI SHARANAGOUDA V. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶27

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC 528 OF BNSS,2023 PRAYING TO, QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS OF CRIMINAL CASE NO. 0929/2024 (ARISEN FROM CRIME NO. 0097/2024 REGISTERED BY THE SHAHABAD TOWN POLICE STATION SHAHABAD FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES, 498A, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHAHABAD.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1483 CRL.P No. 200024 of 2025

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

¶34

The petitioners are the in-laws of the respondent No.2. They have approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 929/2024 arising out of Crime No.97/2024 .

¶35

Brief facts of the case:

¶36

It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant, namely, Basamma married Nagaraj Konkler on 23.05.2021. She stated that at the time of marriage, gifts were given in the form of dowry and also cash of Rs.51,000/- was paid. It is further stated that the petitioners were abusing and harassing her for not preparing the food properly.

¶37

It is further stated that the family members of her husband went to Gouribidanur for the purpose of job. However, she had been subjected to cruelty in the said place also. Being aggrieved by the said cruelty, she had to come back to her parents house.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1483 CRL.P No. 200024 of 2025

¶40

Again, on 15.03.2024 at about 10.00 a.m, when she was at her parents house, her husband Nagaraj, sister-in-law Mahalakshmi, mother-in-law Umadevi and brother-in-law Manjunath went to her house and abused her in a filthy language and also assaulted her by giving the life threat. Therefore, she lodged a complaint on 18.09.2024 against all the family members. The respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.97/2024. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet.

¶41

Heard Sri.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 – State and Sri.Sharanagowda V.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶42

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in this case. There are some omnibus allegations made against the petitioners only in order to coerce them for the settlement.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1483 CRL.P No. 200024 of 2025

¶45

It is further submitted that there is a delay in lodging the complaint. Though the alleged incident stated to have taken place on 15.03.2024, complaint came to be registered on 18.09.2024. On careful reading of the entire averments of the charge sheet, prima facie, no case has been made out against the petitioners. Mere making allegations which are bald and baseless are not sufficient to face the trial. Therefore, it is appropriate to quash the proceedings. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition.

¶46

Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent No.1– State vehemently opposed the said submissions and he further submitted that the petitioners are the in-laws of the respondent No.2. The overt-act of each accused has been explained in the complaint and also in the charge sheet. There might be a delay in allowing the complaint, that itself cannot take away the case of the prosecution. The allegations made against the petitioners are required to be tested through proper trial. At this stage, if charge sheet is quashed, there would be great injustice caused to

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1483 CRL.P No. 200024 of 2025

¶48

the respondent No.2 and hence, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

¶49

No.1 – State prays to dismiss the petition.

¶50

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 adopted the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶51

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, in this context, it is appropriate to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR ALIAS SONAM AND OTHERS v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS¹ held in paragraph Nos.13, 14 and 16, which reads as under:

¶52

“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)

¶53

1 (2022) 6 SCC 599

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1483 CRL.P No. 200024 of 2025

¶56

“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 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.”

¶57

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)

¶58

“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498AIPC 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.

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1483 CRL.P No. 200024 of 2025

¶61

“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 498A 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.

¶62

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.

¶63

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

¶64

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1483 CRL.P No. 200024 of 2025

¶66

task in 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.

¶67

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.”

¶68

Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana,

¶69

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1483 CRL.P No. 200024 of 2025

¶70

(2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6)

¶71

“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.”

¶72

(emphasis in original)

¶73

In another case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIGUMBAR AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER² , held in paragraph No.33, which reads as under:

¶74

“33. It would again, be apposite to refer to the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra) wherein this Court has discussed the objective of Section 498-A of IPC and has also raised its concerns over the misuse of this Section in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed thus:

¶75

“28. 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

¶76

2 2024 SCC Online SC 3836

¶77

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1483 CRL.P No. 200024 of 2025

¶78

years, as there have been a notable rise 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 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.

¶79

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

¶80

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1483 CRL.P No. 200024 of 2025

¶81

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.”

¶82

On careful reading of the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that the Court should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes relating to matrimonial disputes. It is further held that 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.

¶83

In this context, in the present case, the complainant made further allegations against the petitioners herein

¶84

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1483 CRL.P No. 200024 of 2025

¶85

who are the in-laws of the complainant. It is alleged that on 15.03.2024 at about 10.00 a.m all the petitioners and her husband stated to have assaulted and insulted her when she was in the house of her parents. However, a complaint came to be registered on 18.09.2024 on the said incident. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings.

¶86

In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶87

ORDER

¶88

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶89

ii) The proceedings in C.C No.929/2024 pending on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC at Shahabad, are hereby quashed.

¶90

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶91

UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT:PK

Umadevi and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umadevi and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

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

Syed Mustafa Vs the State of Karnataka

Anwar Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashok Vs the State of Karnataka

Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

Vithal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka