Allowed¶93

Prem v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2025CRL.P/200999/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BNS 2023 S.85 cruelty (S.498-A IPC analogue); quashing of matrimonial criminal proceedings; bald, baseless and omnibus allegations; suspicion of fidelity; no specific overt act; abuse of process of law; Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 16 SCC 666; Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667; Neelu Chopra v. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184; CRL.P No. 200999 of 2025; Crime No.9/2025 Kalaburagi Women Police Station; C.C.No.4399/2025 II Addl. CJ JD & JMFC Kalaburagi; S Rachaiah J; High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; the entire proceedings in C.C.No.4399/2025 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and J.M.F.C, Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime No.09/2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS 2023, quashed.

Prem Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶93

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C.No.4399/2025 (noted as C.C.No.4399/2024 in the opening paragraph) pending on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Junior Division, Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime No.9/2025 of Kalaburagi Women Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS-2023, should be quashed. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

Requiring the petitioners to face trial in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of process of law; accordingly the entire proceedings were quashed.

¶88

Ratio / Principle

Where allegations are bald, baseless and omnibus in nature, lacking specific details as to how, when and under what circumstances the complainant was allegedly subjected to harassment, the criminal process cannot be permitted to continue against the in-laws.

¶84

Key takeaways

Such allegations, being far-fetched and improbable, afford no prudent person sufficient ground to proceed against the in-laws; permitting the criminal process to continue in such a situation would result in clear and patent injustice.ratio¶84
In the present case (marriage 12 years ago, three children born of the wedlock), the mere mention in the complaint that the complainant was harassed on suspicion of her fidelity — with no evidence in substantiation and no indication against whom the fidelity was suspected — is not sufficient to hold that the petitioners committed the offences alleged.ratio¶88

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.482 Cr.P.C. old / S.528 BNSS new) by the husband and three in-laws (mother-in-law, brother-in-law and co-sister) seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.4399/2025 on the file of the II Addl. CJ (JD) and JMFC, Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime No.9/2025 of Kalaburagi Women Police Station, registered on the wife's complaint (lodged the day after the incident of 20.03.2025) for offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS-2023, alleging harassment, scolding and beating on suspicion of her fidelity during a 12-year marriage. Reliance placed on Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 16 SCC 666, paras 17-18 (which refer to Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand and Neelu Chopra v. Bharti). HELD: where allegations are bald, baseless and omnibus, lacking specific details of how, when and in what circumstances the harassment occurred, they are far-fetched and improbable and furnish no prudent ground to proceed against the in-laws; a bare mention of harassment on suspicion of fidelity, unsubstantiated by evidence, does not establish the offences; compelling the petitioners to stand trial would be an abuse of process of law. Petition allowed; entire proceedings quashed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5558 CRL.P No. 200999 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶5

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶6

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200999 OF 2025

¶10

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

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

PREM S/O HEERASINGH JADHAV AGE 35 YEARS OCC COOLIE

¶13

SHANTABAI

¶14

W/O HEERASINGH JADHAV AGE 58 YEAR OCC HOUSEHOLD

¶15

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

KISHOR S/O HEERASINGH JADHAV

¶17

AGE 38 YEAR OCC COOLIE

¶18

MAHADEVI

¶19

W/O KISHOR JADHAV

¶20

AGE 34 YEAR OCC HOUSEWIFE

¶21

ALL ARE R/O NEHRU NAGAR TANDA TQ ALAND DIST KALABURAGI 585 302

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH GINNI, ADVOCATE)

¶24

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5558 CRL.P No. 200999 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KALABURAGI WOMEN POLICE STATION DIST KALABURAGI 585103 REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH 585 107

¶28

REKHA W/O PREM JADHAV

¶29

AGE 31 YEAR

¶30

R/O NEHRU NAGAR TANDA NOW AT SEEDS FARM TANDA

¶31

TQ ALAND, DIST KALABURAGI 585 302 (DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT)

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SMT.ANITHA REDDY, HCGP FOR R1;

¶34

SRI.MAHANTESH H. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 4399/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CJ (JD) AND JFMC AT KALABURAGI, ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 9/2025 OF KALABURAGI WOMEN POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) R/W 3(5) OF BNS-2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶36

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

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5558 CRL.P No. 200999 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

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

¶43

The petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4399/2024 pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Junior Division, Kalaburagi.

¶44

Factual matrix of the case:

¶45

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant namely Smt. Rekha W/o Prem Jadhav, who is respondent No.2 herein, had married one Mr. Prem S/o. Heera Singh Jadhav. After, the marriage she started residing in her matrimonial home. In the said wedlock, she gave birth to three children. It is further alleged that whenever she goes to coolie work and comes back, her family members – husband, motherin-law and brother-in-law and her co-sister were suspecting her fidelity and used to scold her. Sometimes, she was being beaten by the said persons. Her husband used to consume alcohol everyday and he was asking money for the said purpose.

¶46

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5558 CRL.P No. 200999 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Again, it is stated that all the above said persons who were suspecting her fidelity, driven her out of the house by assaulting her. On 20.03.2025 at about 9.30 A.M, it is stated that her husband has assaulted and scolded her by using filthy language. At that time, the said quarrel was pacified at the intervention of the family members of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant lodges a complaint on the following day before the respondent – Police.

¶49

Heard Sri. Manjunath Ginni – learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Anitha Reddy – learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. Mahantesh H. Desai – learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶50

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2 lodges a complaint after lapse of 12 years from the date of her marriage. All the allegations made against the petitioners are omnibus, baseless and bald in nature. There is no specific overt-act against the petitioners in respect of

¶51

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5558 CRL.P No. 200999 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

the alleged incident which had had taken place on 20.03.2025 at 9.30 A.M.

¶54

It is further submitted that the charge-sheet averments would indicate that accused No.1 had assaulted the complainant on 20.03.2025, that itself is not sufficient to bring the said quarrel within the purview of cruelty and harassment. In the matrimonial home, certain issues would arise between the parties in a common course of action. Every such quarrel which takes place between the husband and wife cannot be construed as harassment as contemplated under Section 498-A of I.P.C.

¶55

It is further submitted that on careful reading of the entire averments of the complaint, it is stated that the complainant was being ill-treated by her husband and in-laws by suspecting her fidelity. However, it is difficult to prove the said aspect. Mere mentioning in the complaint, the petitioners were suspecting her fidelity is not sufficient to hold that she was being illtreated and assaulted by the petitioners. Therefore,

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5558 CRL.P No. 200999 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

continuing the proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings has to be quashed. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition.

¶59

Per Contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2, vehemently submitted that the averments of the complaint would indicate that the petitioners were continuously harassing respondent No.2 on one or the other pretext and they used to scold her and also they were assaulting her even on the trivial issues.

¶60

It is further submitted that all the family members were suspecting her fidelity and they were insulting, harassing her on one or the other pretext. Therefore, prima-facie , there are materials to proceed against the petitioners and the petitioners are required to face the trial. If the petition, is allowed greater injustice would be caused to the petitioners. Therefore, the petition has to be rejected. Making such submissions, learned

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5558 CRL.P No. 200999 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

counsel for respondent No.2 prays to reject the petition.

¶65

Similarly, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State of Karnataka adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondent No.2 and he further submitted that the averments made in the complaint certainly would disclose prima-facie materials against the petitioners. Therefore, it is not appropriate to quash the entire proceedings. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader, prays to reject the petition.

¶66

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also on perusal of the averments of the complaint and the charge-sheet, it is relevant at this stage to refer the proposition of law in respect of Section 498-A of I.P.C., which reads thus:

¶67

“498-A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-

¶68

1[Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5558 CRL.P No. 200999 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

¶72

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"—

¶73

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

¶74

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing 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.”

¶75

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh¹ in paragraph

¶76

Nos.17 and 18, held as under:

¶77

“17. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498-AIPC. It was observed that 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, as allegations of harassment by husband's close relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely

¶78

1 (2023) 16 SCC 666

¶79

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5558 CRL.P No. 200999 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

different complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.

¶83

18. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 286] , this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the “be all and end all” of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498-A IPC.”

¶84

On careful reading of dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the ratio laid down in the judgment referred supra, it is evident that, if the allegations are bald, baseless and omnibus in nature, lacking specific details regarding, how and when, and under what circumstances the complainant has allegedly subjected to harassment. Under such circumstances, the allegations seems so farfetched and improbable that no prudent person could conclude that there are sufficient ground to proceed against the in-laws. Permitting the criminal process to continue in such a situation would no-doubt result in a clear and patent in justifications.

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5558 CRL.P No. 200999 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment referred supra , in the present case, respondent No.2 married the petitioner No.1, 12 years ago. In the meantime, due to said wedlock, she gave birth to three children. Though it is alleged that the petitioners were harassing her and illtreating her only on suspecting her fidelity, there is no evidence to substantiate the said allegations. Mere mentioning in the complaint that she was being harassed on suspecting her fidelity, itself is not sufficient to hold that the petitioners have committed the offences stated supra. Nowhere in the complaint against whom the petitioners were suspecting her fidelity is not forthcoming. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that asking the petitioners to face the trial under such circumstances, would certainly amounts to an abuse of process of law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶89

ORDER

¶90

i. The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶91

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5558 CRL.P No. 200999 of 2025

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

ii. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.4399/2025 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and J.M.F.C, Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime No.09/2025, for the offences punishable under Sections.85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023 is hereby quashed.

¶94

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶95

UN/NM/JS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 4

Prem v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem 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

Shivannagowda S N Vs Sri Vairmudi

Ramachandrappa. v Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Zammer Vs the State of Karnataka

Aadu @ Aadi @ Infant Adarsha Vs the State of Karnataka by

Shri More Agro Fertilizers Vs the State of Karnataka

Prashant Vs the State of Karnataka