Dismissed¶¶84

Shri Vaibhav Vinayak Kamat v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2026CRL.P/104081/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vaibhav Vinayak Kamat & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., CRL.P No. 104081 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, decided 08-01-2026 by V. Srishananda J. — quashing of C.C.No.3087/2024 (Crime No.43/2024, Women PS Belagavi) under S.85, 115(2), 352, 3(5) BNS 2023 refused; charge-sheet materials showed nexus between petitioners and incident; mini trial not permissible under S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS at quashing stage; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The investigation agency has collected the necessary materials so as to establish the nexus between the petitioners and the incident of 17.07.2024 in which the second respondent consumed 'harpic'. ¶¶71

Shri Vaibhav Vinayak Kamat Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶84

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 3087/2024 (Crime No. 43/2024, Women Police Station, Belagavi City) for offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS, 2023. +1 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

At the quashing stage the Court cannot hold a mini trial to find out the merits or demerits of the case, as the same would hamper the parties during the trial.

¶¶77

Ratio / Principle

The investigation agency has collected the necessary materials so as to establish the nexus between the petitioners and the incident of 17.07.2024 in which the second respondent consumed 'harpic'.

¶¶71

Key takeaways

The material collected by the investigation agency in the charge sheet cannot be brushed aside lightly in view of the specific allegations levelled against the petitioners; notably, the second respondent did not lodge any complaint against the father-in-law, sister-in-law or brother-in-law.ratio¶¶76
Since both the petitioners and the second respondent, along with relatives of the petitioners, were residing in the same house, the Court finds no grounds whatsoever to quash the pending criminal proceeding.ratio¶¶78

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (CRL.P No. 104081 of 2025) under S.482 Cr.P.C. (S.528 BNSS, 2023) seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.3087/2024 (Crime No.43/2024, Women Police Station, Belagavi City) for offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 — complaint by wife alleging harassment after marriage dated 28.04.2024, pledging of scooter and mangalsutra, denial of permission to visit parental house, and consumption of 'harpic' on 17.07.2024 — HELD: investigation agency collected materials establishing the nexus between the petitioners and the incident; specific allegations levelled against the petitioners, and the second respondent had not implicated the father-in-law, sister-in-law or brother-in-law; material in the charge sheet cannot be brushed aside lightly; a mini trial into merits is impermissible at the quashing stage; no grounds to quash — Petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:181 CRL.P No. 104081 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104081 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI VAIBHAV VINAYAK KAMAT, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. 1113, NEAR RAM MANDIR, BICCHU GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI-590003.

¶10

SMT. VIDYA VINAYAK KAMAT, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. 1113, NEAR RAM MANDIR, BICCHU GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI-590003.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. AFSAR SHAFI AHAMED, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD WOMEN PS, BELAGAVI, AT BELAGAVI 590011.

¶16

SMT. KOMAL VAIBHAV KAMAT, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. H.NO.2088, KORE GALLI, SHAHPUR, BELAGAVI-590003.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:181 CRL.P No. 104081 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN C.C. 3087/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE II JMFC COURT, BELAGAVI, AT BELAGAVI AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. 3087/2024, CRIME NO 43/2024, WOMEN POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 85, 115(2), 352, 3(5) OF BNS, AGAINST PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2.

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

Heard Sri Afsar Shafi Ahamed, learned counsel for petitioners, Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Mahantesh S.Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶26

The present petition is filed under Section 482 of

¶27

Cr.P.C. with the following prayer.

¶28

“Praying to call for records in C.C.3087/2024 pending before the II JMFC Court, Belagavi, at Belagavi and quash the entire proceedings in C.C. 3087/2024, Crime No.43/2024, Women Police Station, Belagavi City, for the offences punishable u/sec.85, 115(2), 352, 3(5) of BNS, against petitioners/accused No.1 and 2.”

¶29

The facts of the case are as under:

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:181 CRL.P No. 104081 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

A complaint came to be filed by respondent No.2 with Belagavi City Women Police alleging that she has married petitioner No.1 on 28.04.2024 in Gangapuri Matha's Samskuthika Bhavana, Shahapur. At the time of marriage, gold ornaments and household articles were given to the petitioners. After the marriage, 2^nd respondent joined the matrimonial home situated at Bichchugalli, Shahapur. In the said house, the second respondent, petitioners and fatherin-law by name Vinayaka and brother-in-law by name Vishal and sister-in-law by name Shraddha and relative of the first petitioner namely Anil Kulkarni were living together.

¶33

It is further alleged in the complaint that many creditors started visiting the house of the petitioners demanding the loan obtained by petitioner and his family. On enquiry, second petitioner has revealed that they have incurred lot of debts and therefore, the persons are visiting their house demanding the loan amount. Second respondent was looked after in a good manner for about 15 days and thereafter second petitioner started demanding

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:181 CRL.P No. 104081 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

the second respondent to bring the additional money to clear the debts. It is also revealed that her husband pledged the scooter within 20 days of the marriage and the mangalsutra of the second respondent was also forcibly took out and pledged for clearing the loan.

¶37

It was also told to the second respondent that she should not reveal these issues to her parental house and she was not allowed to visit the parental house nor to telephone to the parents. However, when second respondent tried to contact her parental house over telephone, first respondent abused her and assaulted her. Second respondent tolerated all this for sometime and both the petitioners were ill-treating the second respondent both physically and mentally.

¶38

When matter stood thus, on 17.07.2024, in the month of Ashada, when the second respondent wanted to visit her parental house, petitioners did not permit her to do so and they did not offer the food for her and she was

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:181 CRL.P No. 104081 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

starving. Ultimately when she is unable to bear the physical and mental harassment, second respondent consumed ‘harpic’ (toilet cleaning liquid) at about 11:00 p.m. on 17.07.2024. Noting the same, her brother-in-law and sisterin-law shifted her to Siddhi Hospital at Shahapur and she had lost the consciousness. Moment she regained the consciousness, her husband visited the hospital and mentally harassed not to lodge the complaint. Next day having known about the incident, her parents visited the hospital and enquired with the doctor and she was inpatient in the hospital for about four days and after discharge, she lodged the complaint.

¶42

Based on the complaint, police registered the case in Crime No.43/2024 for the offences punishable under Section 85, 115(2), 352, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and thoroughly investigated the matter and filed charge sheet.

¶43

Learned trial Magistrate took cognizance of the

¶44

same and registered the case in C.C.No.3087/2024.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC-D:181 CRL.P No. 104081 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners

¶49

have challenged the order taking cognizance and resisting the criminal case in this petition on the following grounds:

¶50

It is primarily submitted that the entire proceedings so initiated by the Respondent are bad at law and are visibly faulty, vexatious, baseless and nothing but abuse of process of law which amounts to malicious prosecution and therefore interference of this Hon'ble Court is called for.

¶51

It is further submitted that when the alleged incident took place, neither the Petitioner No.1 nor Petitioner No.2 were present. The Respondent No.2 all by herself tried to consume Harpic. Trial Court ought to have had rejected the complaint on the face of it.

¶52

It is submitted that the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No. 2 were in a relationship 5 years prior to their marriage. After which they decided to involve the families and get married. Only within 15 days of marriage, the Respondent No.2 started misbehaving with the Petitioner No.1.

¶53

Since 2018 the Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No.2 were having an affair. They have married each other out of their own wish and will, going

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC-D:181 CRL.P No. 104081 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

against the Petitioner No.2 and her family. There is no involvement of Petitioner No.2 in the alleged incident. The Respondent No.2 has done this on instigation of her mother and the so called Social workers involved. The Respondents have used the Petitioner No.2 as a scape goat only with an intention to harass her. The Petitioner No.2 being uneducated and a senior citizen has fallen prey to the drama initiated by the Respondent No.2 and her parents.

¶58

The Respondent No.2 only with a Malafide intention to harass the Petitioners and dupe money in the form of settlement has created a false story and filed this false complaint.

¶59

It is submitted that this complaint is evidently made only to harass the petitioner and therefore, is liable to be quashed in entirety.

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating

¶61

the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that omnibus allegations are made and there are no materials on record which would support the filing of the charge sheet or taking the cognizance of the aforesaid

¶62

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC-D:181 CRL.P No. 104081 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

offences and sought for quashing the pending criminal proceedings.

¶66

Per contra , learned High Court Government

¶67

Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the second respondent support the impugned order.

¶68

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this

¶69

Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶70

On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that the second respondent was married to the first petitioner on 28.04.2024. The incident has occurred on 17.07.2024 at about 11:00 p.m.

¶71

What made the second respondent to consume the ‘harpic’ and tried to lose her life is explained in the complaint itself in categorical terms. Further, the Investigation Agency is able to collect the necessary materials so as to establish the nexus between the petitioners and the incident.

¶72

9 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:181 CRL.P No. 104081 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Pertinently the second respondent has not

¶75

chosen to lodge the complaint against the father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. In fact, she has specifically stated that it is the brother-in-law and sister-in-law who shifted her to the hospital.

¶76

Therefore, at this juncture, this Court cannot brush aside the material collected by investigation agency in the charge sheet lightly in view of the specific allegations levelled against the petitioners herein.

¶77

Further, this Court cannot hold a mini trial to find out the merits or demerits of the case as the same would definitely hamper the parties during the trial one way or the other.

¶78

Fact remains that both the petitioners and the second respondent with relatives of the petitioners were residing in the same house. Therefore, this Court does not find any grounds whatsoever to quash the pending criminal proceeding.

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC-D:181 CRL.P No. 104081 of 2025

¶80