Laxmibai Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS-2023, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION U/SEC 482 OF CR.P.C U/SEC 528 OF BNSS, 2023 FLED BY THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO. 2 AND 3 AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR. NO.162/2023 OF WOMEN P.S KALABURAGI CITY, NOW PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KALABURAGI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 498(A), 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC IN C.C. NO.2336/2024 SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 ARE CONCERNED.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶32

This petition is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.2

¶33

and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.162/2023 registered by Women Police Station, Kalaburagi now pending on the file of the I-Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Kalaburagi in C.C.No.2336/2024 for the

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2754 CRL.P No. 200615 of 2025

¶35

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶36

The factual matrix leading to the case of the prosecution is that, respondent No.2 married with the son of petitioners. The allegations of the complainant in the complaint are that at the time of marriage, accused No.1 was given 9 tolas of gold, Rs.1,00,000/- cash and all household utensils and spent Rs.4,00,000/- for the purpose of marriage. Accused No.1, a BHMS doctor, addicted to alcohol and because of that addiction he was removed from the job. Whenever the complainant asked her husband as to why he was not going to job and why he was not paying anything to the complainant for the household expenses, he in an inebriated condition, beat her. The complainant has raised a loan of Rs.3,00,000/to settle the loan of her husband. The only allegations against the petitioners herein are that they abused her stating that because of her their son is addicted to alcohol and she is not preparing good food and not looking after

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2754 CRL.P No. 200615 of 2025

¶38

their son. Except this, there is no other allegation against the petitioner.

¶39

Heard Sri M. M. Allur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.B. Yadav, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State. Respondent No.2 – de facto complainant though served, has remained absent.

¶40

Sri M. M. Allur submits that there are no specific allegations in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet materials against the petitioners herein. Only because they are the parents of accused No.1, they cannot be roped in the proceedings. They are age old, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and cause miscarriage of justice. To buttress his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar and

¶41

Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. passed in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6545 of 2020) dated 08.02.2022. He also relied upon judgment passed by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2754 CRL.P No. 200615 of 2025

¶43

Ramesh G.H. vs. State of Karnataka 2022 and Another reported in 2022 (4) KCCR 3034.

¶44

Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.B. Yadav, learned HCGP submits that there are allegations against the petitioners that they are abusing the complainant. This clearly shows that there is mental cruelty to the complainant and the allegations made in the complaint are more than sufficient for the prosecution to continue the proceedings against these petitioners also. The age factor of the petitioners is not a ground to seek quashing of the proceedings, the petitioners and accused No.1 were residing under the same roof, there is all possibility of petitioners tutoring accused No.1 to treat the complainant with cruelty. With this submission, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶46

A perusal of entire prosecution materials, more particularly, the complaint and the statements, entire

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2754 CRL.P No. 200615 of 2025

¶48

allegations are made against the husband that he was addicted to alcohol and in an inebriated state he used to beat the complainant. The only allegation against the petitioners is that, they abused her that because of her their son is addicted to alcohol and she is not preparing good food and not looking after their son. All these are common altercations in the family and cannot be termed as cruelty which entails the daughter-in-law to register the complaint including parents-in-law. The entire allegations in the complaint are against the husband. In the absence of specific allegations of cruelty as contemplated under Section 498A of IPC, the further continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law.

¶49

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar’s

¶50

case supra at Paragraph Nos.18 and 19 has expressed the concern on misuse of the provisions of Section 498A, which read as follows:

¶51

“18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC-K:2754 CRL.P No. 200615 of 2025

¶54

instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A Indian Penal Code 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.

¶55

Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, 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

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2754 CRL.P No. 200615 of 2025

¶57

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.”

¶58

So also the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in

¶59

Ramesh G.H.’s case supra has held at Paragraph Nos.9 and 10 as under:

¶60

“9. A perusal at the complaint would indicate certain overt acts by the husband, which the complainant narrates that he used to torture the complainant after getting drunk and also harass the complainant demanding the salary that the complainant had earned for 10 to 12 years. The further statement recorded by the Police while investigation also indicates that the allegations are against the husband in its entirety. Insofar as the other members of the family, the motherin-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law or sistersin-law there is even not whisper of allegation in

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2754 CRL.P No. 200615 of 2025

¶62

the entire complaint, as a matter of fact, the sisters-in-law do not even reside with the couple.

¶63

The observations of the Police while filing the charge sheet in column No.17 would also indicate that the entire allegations are against the 1st petitioner-husband and allegation with regard to the demand of dowry is made against the other accused. Therefore, looking at the complaint, the statement of the complainant and the findings of the investigation as found in the summary of the charge sheet, all would lead to on unmistakable conclusion that the allegations are primarily against the husband, and other members of the family; father-in-law, mother-inlaw, brother-in-law and sisters-in-law are dragged into these proceedings without their being any overt act alleged against them. Therefore, the proceedings against other members of the family, if permitted to continue, would result in miscarriage of justice. The view of mine in this regard is fortified by the Judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in

¶64

10 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC-K:2754 CRL.P No. 200615 of 2025

¶66

(2012) 10 SCC 741, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:

¶67

“25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the coaccused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well

¶68

settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding.

¶69

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2754 CRL.P No. 200615 of 2025

¶70

In the case at hand, when the brother and unmarried sister of the principal accused Shyamji Mehrotra approached the High Court for quashing the proceedings against them, inter alia, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as also on the ground that no case was made out against them under Sections 498-A/323/504/506 IPC including Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, it was the legal duty of the High Court to examine whether there were prima facie material against the appellants so that they could be directed to undergo the trial, besides the question of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court seems to have overlooked all the pleas that were raised and rejected the petition on the solitary ground of territorial jurisdiction giving liberty to the appellants to approach the trial court.

¶71

The High Court in our considered opinion appears to have missed that assuming the trial court had territorial jurisdiction, it was still left to be decided whether it was a fit case to send the appellants for trial when the FIR failed to make out a prima facie case against them regarding the allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to the complainant demanding dowry from the complainant. Since the High Court has failed to consider all these aspects, this Court as already stated hereinbefore, could have remitted the matter to the High Court to consider whether a case was made out against the appellants to proceed against them. But as the contents of the FIR does not disclose specific allegation against the brother and sister of the complainant’s husband except casual reference of their names, it would not be just to direct them to go through protracted procedure by remanding for consideration of the matter all over again by the High Court

¶72

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2754 CRL.P No. 200615 of 2025

¶73

and make the unmarried sister of the main accused and his elder brother to suffer the ordeal of a criminal case pending against them specially when the FIR does not disclose ingredients of offence under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶74

We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of respondent No.2 complainant without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant’s husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings insofar as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The appeal accordingly is allowed.””

¶75

In the judgments supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court have clearly exhibited their concern on the misuse of the provisions of Section 498A of IPC. The case on hand is not different from the case which had fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Co-ordinate bench of this Court. Considering the entire materials of the prosecution

¶76

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2754 CRL.P No. 200615 of 2025

¶77

and the averments made, particularly the averments in the complaint, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would definitely amounts to abuse of process of law that too in the evening days of the petitioners who are aged 65 and 70 years respectively, at present. For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following:

¶78

ORDER

¶79

(i) The petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is hereby allowed.

¶80

(ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.2336/ 2024 on the file of the I-Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime No.162/2023 of Women Police Station, Kalaburagi registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC are hereby quashed so far as petitioners are concerned.

¶81

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶82

SWK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT: PS

Laxmibai v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmibai 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

Manappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallikarjun Vs the State of Karnataka

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Shubha @ Shobha

Kalavati Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Kalavati Vs the State of Karnataka