Dismissed¶98

Bharati W/O. Shankararao Navade, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2026CRL.P/103429/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing under S.482 CrPC refused; cognizance 21.11.2024 in C.C.670/2024 (Ramdurg PS Crime 57/2024); offences S.498(A), 323, 504, 506 r/w S.34 IPC and Ss.3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; accused 2-4 relatives of husband; prima facie physical and mental harassment at Kolhapur; panchayath statements corroborate; additional dowry demand 17.03.2024; no-nexus plea of third petitioner rejected; grounds held to be defence for trial; petition dismissed; High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad; V. Srishananda J.; 21.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Complaint averments and charge-sheet materials prima facie establish that there was physical and mental harassment of respondent No.2 while she was living in the matrimonial house at Kolhapur. ¶82

Bharati W/O. Shankararao Navade, Vs the State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶98

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance dated 21.11.2024 and further proceedings against Accused Nos.2 to 4/petitioners in C.C.No. 670/2024 (Ramdurg PS Crime No. 57/2024) ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

Complaint averments and charge-sheet materials prima facie establish that there was physical and mental harassment of respondent No.2 while she was living in the matrimonial house at Kolhapur.

¶82

Ratio / Principle

Panchayath statements recorded by the Investigation Agency are in line with the complaint averments.

¶83

Key takeaways

These aspects of the matter prima facie reveal that all the petitioners are responsible for the alleged offences.ratio¶92
The contention that the third petitioner had no nexus to the alleged crime cannot be countenanced in law, at least for the time being, since admittedly at the time of incident she was not married.ratio¶92
Other grounds urged in the petition are in the nature of defence; the petitioners are reserved liberty to urge the available defences in the pending trial.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench (V. Srishananda, J.), 21-01-2026 — CRL.P No. 103429 of 2024, filed under Section 528 BNSS 2023 read as a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Accused Nos.2 to 4, relatives of the husband of respondent No.2, seeking quashing of cognizance dated 21.11.2024 in C.C.No.670/2024 arising out of Ramdurg PS Crime No. 57/2024 for offences under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. HELD (petition dismissed): complaint averments and charge-sheet materials prima facie establish physical and mental harassment of respondent No.2 at the Kolhapur matrimonial home; panchayath statements recorded by the investigating agency corroborate the complaint; the 21.05.2020 assault on the public road and the 17.03.2024 demand for additional dowry at the panchayat prima facie implicate all the petitioners; the plea that the third petitioner, being married and residing separately, had no nexus was rejected as she was admittedly unmarried at the time of the incident; remaining grounds are matters of defence available at trial, for which the petitioners stand reserved.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:712 CRL.P No. 103429 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103429 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

BHARATI W/O. SHANKARARAO NAVADE, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/AT: AP-VASANT PARK, CALANI SUGAR MILL CARNAR, KASABA TQ., KOLHAPUR, ST. MAHARASTRA-416006.

¶11

KIRAN S/O. SHANKARARAO NAVADE, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. TAILOR, R/AT AP-VASANT PARK, CALANI SUGAR MILL CARNAR, KASABA TQ., KOLHAPUR, ST. MAHARASTRA-416006.

¶12

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

¶13

PRIYA D/O. SHANKARARAO NAVADE, AFTER MARRIAGE, PRIYA W/O. KESHAV SUTRAVE, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/AT BALLARI-583101.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.01.31 11:21:17 +0530

¶16

(BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RAMDURGA POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶19

SMT. TEJASWINI W/O. PRAKASH NAVADE, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, AT VASANT PARK, CALANI SUGAR, MILL CARNAR, KASABA TQ.,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC-D:712 CRL.P No. 103429 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

KOLHAPUR, ST. MAHARASHTRA-416006 NOW R/AT: PUNDALIK, ISHWARAPPA HANCHATE, YANAMPET, RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591123.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 21.11.2024 AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4/PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO. 670/2024 ARISING OUT OF RAMDURG POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 57/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAMDURGA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A), 323, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, U/S 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

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

¶30

Heard Sri.Gouri Shankar Mot, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader-Smt.Kiritilatha R. Patil, for respondent No.1-State and Sri.Gurudev Gachchinamath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶31

The petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’) with the following prayer:

¶32

“Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this

¶33

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the cognizance dated

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC-D:712 CRL.P No. 103429 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

21.11.2024 and further proceedings as against the accused No.2 to 4/petitioners in C.C.No.670/2024 arising out of Ramdurg Police Station Crime No.57/2024 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Ramdurga for the offence punishable under Section 498(A), 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in the interest of justice.”

¶38

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for

¶39

the disposal of the present petition are as under:

¶40

3.1 The respondent No.2 is married to the son of the first petitioner, Sri.Prashanth, as per the customs. For a brief period, there was a happy matrimonial relationship. Thereafter, the petitioners herein used to abuse the respondent No.2, on the ground that she did not know how to cook properly and they physically and mentally harassed her. She suffered the same and kept quiet for some time. When the torture was unable to be borne, she complained to her father. Subsequently, a panchayath was held.

¶41

3.2. In the meantime, she gave birth to a baby girl at her parental home. After the panchayath, she was brought back to the matrimonial home. Again there was a harassment, on the

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC-D:712 CRL.P No. 103429 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

ground that there was no proper dowry amount given at the time of marriage.

¶46

3.3 When the matter stood thus, the respondent No.2 somehow tolerated the said harassment. However, on 21.05.2020 at about 12.35 p.m., husband of the respondent No.2, along with the petitioners herein joined together and pulled her out of the house and assaulted the respondent No.2 mercilessly on a public road. The third petitioner herein dragged the girl child of the respondent No.2,Sanvi, by holding her hands, thereby causing injury to the baby girl as well. The incident was reported to the father of respondent No.2 over telephone. Her father visited the matrimonial home and took back the respondent No.2 and her child to Kambi Hospital at the first instant and later on to Pattavardhan Hospital.

¶47

3.4. When the matter stood thus, on 17.03.2024, the husband of the respondent No.2 visited her parental house at about 04.30 p.m. where a panchayat was convened in the presence of Vasudev, Pandurang, Mahantesh.

¶48

3.5 In the said panchayat also, the husband of the respondent No.2 demanded additional dowry. The panchayath members convinced him not to make such a demand. At that

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC-D:712 CRL.P No. 103429 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

juncture, the husband of the respondent No.2 stated before the panchayath members that he did not demand money from the panchayat members, but he is demanding money from his wife and that unless and until the demand of additional dowry was met, respondent No.2 could not be taken back to the matrimonial home. He also gave life threat.

¶53

3.6 It is also revealed from the complaint averments that respondent No.2 was asked to execute a bond stating that if anything were to happen to her, the petitioners would not be responsible for the same.

¶54

Based on the said complaint, Ramadurga Police registered a case in Crime No.61 of 2024 on 26.05.2024, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the petitioners.

¶55

Learned trial Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences, registered the criminal case and proceeding with the criminal case.

¶56

The order taking cognizance is under challenge in this petition, filed by the relatives of the husband of the respondent No.2, on the following grounds:

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC-D:712 CRL.P No. 103429 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

“The petitioners are the innocent & the law abiding citizens. They have not committed any offence, as alleged by the complainant against them & on perusal of the entire complaint there is only vague allegation against the petitioners, no specific allegation is made.

¶61

It is submitted that, the Petitioner/accused no. 2 to 4 are innocent of the offences leveled against them and are no way concerned with the alleged offence.

¶62

The petitioner no. 1 and 2 are the old aged mother and brother of accused no. 1; and the other accused no.3 is married and residing separately from the complainant & accused no. 1.

¶63

 It is submitted that the respondent no.2 has filed Crl. Misc 115/2024 before Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, At Ramdurg under Sec 12, 14,17,18,20 and 22 of Domestic violence Act. Wherein the allegations made are different than the ones made in the complaint. This clearly shows that the complaint is not genuine and has been concocted with the sole objective to vex the petitioners herein. To show this the petitioners are producing Certified Copy Of petition in Crl. Misc 115/2024 herewith marked as ANNEXURE - E.

¶64

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC-D:712 CRL.P No. 103429 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

It is submitted that, the allegations nurtured in the complaint are baseless, vague & stray allegations. The complainant roped the petitioners in this case just to get settled the scores.

¶68

That there is an inordinate delay of two months in filing of the said complaint, raising serious concerns that the said complaint may have been concocted only to vex the petitioners.

¶69

The criminal initiation of proceeding against the Petitioner/accused no. 2 to 4 is nothing but vague, as it is being initiated to implicate the other petitioners/accused in the above said crime. It is submitted that entire case is concocted and created by the Respondent No. 2.

¶70

That the allegation made in the complaint against the petitioner no. 2 to 4 do not attract the above offences as mentioned in complaint and FIR that being so the trail court without taking in to consideration the material evidence on record and also on prima-facie case made out against the petitioners.”

¶71

Sri.Gouri Shankar Mot, learned counsel representing

¶72

the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, would contend that first petitioner is the mother-in-law of the

¶73

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC-D:712 CRL.P No. 103429 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

respondent No.2, second petitioner is the brother-in-law of the respondent No.2 and third petitioner is the married sister of the first petitioner, who is no way connected with the alleged offences and residing separately and have been falsely implicated in the case on hand and sought for quashing the pending proceedings.

¶77

Per Contra, Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Gurudev I Gachhinmath, appearing for respondent No.2 would support the order taking cognizance and would contend that at the most grounds urged in the petition constitute a defence available to the petitioners to be canvassed during the pending trial and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶78

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶79

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that there is no dispute that the respondent No.2 was married to the elder son of the first petitioner. All the petitioners, along with the respondent No.2 and her husband, lived in house at Kolhapur at the first instance.

¶80

9 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:712 CRL.P No. 103429 of 2024

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

During the time of confinement period, respondent No.2 was sent to the parental house at Ramadurga. The complaint averments and the charge sheet materials would clearly, prima facie, establish that there was physical and mental harassment to respondent No.2 when she was living in the matrimonial house at Kolhapur. Details of the incident are also revealed by the complainant not only in the form of complaint averments but also through other statements.

¶83

Panchayath statements are also recorded by the Investigation Agency, wherein they have stated in line with the complaint averments.

¶84

After the respondent No.2 delivered a female child, there was no response from the petitioners and respondent No.2 remained in the matrimonial home. A panchayath was convened and respondent No.2 was sent back to the matrimonial home. However, soon after she joined the matrimonial home on 21.05.2020, there was an ugly incident wherein respondent No.2 was dragged outside the matrimonial home and on the public road all the petitioners abused and assaulted her.

¶85

The third petitioner said to have dragged the child of the respondent No.2 from the house by holding improperly

¶86

10 -

¶87

NC: 2026:KHC-D:712 CRL.P No. 103429 of 2024

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

handling the child, resulting in injury to the child as well. The incident was again reported by the respondent No.2 to her husband, who visited Kolhapur and brought the respondent No.2 and her child to Kambi Hospital and thereafter, they were treated in Patwardhan Hospital.

¶90

When the matter stood thus, on 17.03.2024, husband of the second petitioner said to have visited the parental house of the respondent No.2 and demanded additional dowry.

¶91

A panchayat was convened and in the presence of the panchayat itself, the husband of the respondent No.2 demanded additional dowry and specifically told that unless the demand of additional dowry is met, the respondent No.2 would not be allowed to enter the matrimonial home.

¶92

These aspects of the matter prima facie reveal that all the petitioners are responsible for the alleged offences. Admittedly, at the time of incident, the third petitioner was not married and therefore, the argument put forth on behalf of the petitioners that she has no nexus to the alleged crime cannot be countenanced in law, at least for the time being.

¶93

11 -

¶94

NC: 2026:KHC-D:712 CRL.P No. 103429 of 2024

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

Other grounds urged in the petition are in the nature of defence, as is rightly contented by the respondents. Therefore, reserving the petitioners to urge the available defences in the pending trial, the following order is passed.

¶97

ORDER

¶98

The petition dismissed .

¶99

Sd/(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶100

RHR/-Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 27

Bharati W/O. Shankararao Navade, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharati W/O. Shankararao Navade, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K S M Mohamed Saleem S/O Mohamed Karim Vs the State of Karnataka

Yashavant S/O Shantappa Benageri Alias Bennigeri Vs State of Karnataka

Gopal S/O Lingappa Malgiti Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Appayya S/O Rachayya Mathapathi Vs the State of Karnataka by (Athani Ps ) Belagavi

Malakari S/O Balakrishna Hudedamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sadashiv S/O Kallappa Uppar Vs the State of Karnataka