Raju S/O. Parashuram Baddi Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:246 CRL.P No. 100632 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, T DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100632 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAJU S/O. PARASHURAM BADDI AGE. 34 YEARS, CC. BUSINESS, R/O. LUTHIMATH LAYOUT, HEGGERI, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580021.

¶9

PARASHURAM S/O. TUKARAM BADDI AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. WORKING IN TIMBER YARD, R/O. LUTHIMATH LAYOUT, HEGGERI, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580021.

¶10

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.14 14:07:19 +0530

¶11

SMT. RATNABAI W/O. PARASHURAM BADDI AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. LUTHIMATH LAYOUT, HEGGERI, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580021.

¶12

VIDYA D/O. PARASHURAM BADDI AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. LUTHIMATH LAYOUT, HEGGERI, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580021.

¶13

SMT. NEHA W/O. SUNIL HABIB AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. LUTHIMATH LAYOUT,

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC-D:246 CRL.P No. 100632 of 2022

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

HEGGERI, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580021.

¶18

ANIL S/O. NARAYANSA BADDI AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KESHWAPUR, PARASWADI, HUBBALLI-580031.

¶19

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶22

BY PSI, WOMEN POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580001.

¶23

SMT. GEETA W/O. RAJU BADDI AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. AT PRESENT SHARAVATHI LAYOUT, OLD HUBBALLI-580021.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ASHOK I. BADIGER, ADVOCATE FOR R2

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6, IN WOMEN POLICE STATION, HUBBALI CRIME NO.11/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A), 323, 504, 506, R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HUBBALLI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:246 CRL.P No. 100632 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶32

Heard Sri M. L. Vanti, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, and Sri Ashok I. Badiger, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

¶33

The petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶34

“Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays that the Hon'ble court be pleased to quash the Complaint and FIR registered against the petitioners/accused No.1 to 6, in Husballi Women Police Station, Hubballi, Crime No.11/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506, R/w section 149 of I.P.C. Pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hubballi, in the interest of justice.

¶35

Grant such other relief's as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC-D:246 CRL.P No. 100632 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a

¶40

memo for withdrawal. The memo reads as under:

¶41

Memo for Withdrawal

¶42

“That the petitioner Nos.1 to 5 hering not pressing the above petition therefore the Hon’ble court be pleased to dismiss the above petition with respect to petitioners No.1 to 5 as withdrawn reserving the liberty to calling the charge sheet if situation arise, to meet ends of justice.

¶43

Hence the Memo.”

¶44

Placing the memo on record, the petition insofar

¶45

as it relates to petitioners Nos.1 to 5 is dismissed as

¶46

withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.

¶47

Hence, the present petition is now restricted to

¶48

petitioner No. 6.

¶49

The facts, in a nutshell, which are most necessary for disposal of the present petition, are as under:

¶50

Based on the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2, Smt.Geeta, the Women Police Station, Hubballi, registered a

¶51

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:246 CRL.P No. 100632 of 2022

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

case in Crime No. 11/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) against all the petitioners.

¶54

As could be seen from the material on record, respondent No.2 was married to Sri Raju Baddi on 22.12.2016, and for a brief period there was a happy married life. Thereafter, there was physical and mental harassment on the pretext of demand for dowry.

¶55

Insofar as petitioner No.6 is concerned, he is a relative of the other petitioners, and no specific allegations are made against him. Moreover, petitioner No.6 did not share a common roof with the other petitioners. Therefore, he is seeking quashing of the FIR against him.

¶56

Sri M. L. Vanti, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that in a matter of this nature, it is not uncommon that persons unconnected with the dayto-day family affairs are also arraigned as accused only with

¶57

6 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC-D:246 CRL.P No. 100632 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

an intention to harass or blackmail the husband and his relatives, and therefore the petition needs to be allowed.

¶61

Per contra , Smt. Kirtilata, learned High Court Government Pleader, supports the registration of the FIR against petitioner No.6 and submits that if the Investigation Officer finds that no case is made out against petitioner No.6, he would be dropped from the case, and therefore seeks dismissal of the petition in its entirety.

¶62

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court notes that in the complaint itself there is no specific averment against petitioner No.6, who is a far relative of petitioners Nos.1 to 5.

¶63

It is not uncommon that in matters of this nature, the wife-complainant arraigns all family members, including far relatives, only with an intention to harass them.

¶64

Therefore, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kehkashan Kausar @ Sonam

¶65

7 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC-D:246 CRL.P No. 100632 of 2022

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others¹ , the FIR against petitioner No.6 needs to be quashed, and the investigation needs to be continued insofar as petitioners

¶69

Nos. 1 to 5 are concerned.

¶70