AAKASH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200270 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200269 OF 2026
IN CRL.P NO.200270/2026:
BETWEEN:
1.
KHEMU S/O DHANSING RATHOD,
AGE:82 YEARS, OCC:SR. CITIZEN,
2.
BHADRABAI W/O KHEMU RATHOD,
AGE:75 YEARS, OCC:SR. CITIZEN,
ALL R/O. ARJUNGI TANDA, TQ. AFZALPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585 100.
3. UTTAM S/O TIPPU CHAVAN,
AGE:28 YEARS, OCC:TEACHER MURARJI
SCHOOL, R/O. QUARTER MURARJI SCHOOL,
ARJUNGI TQ. AFZALPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585 100.
4. DEELIP S/O TIPPU CHAVAN,
AGE:29 YEARS, OCC: (M.SC.) STUDENT,
R/O. ARJUNGI TANDA, TQ. AFZALPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585 100.
NOW RESIDING AT BENGALURU.
Digitally signed
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANGOLI NAGANNA & RUDRESH B. KERUDI,
ADVOCATES)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVOOR
POLICE STATION, TQ. AFZALPUR,
PRESENTLY REPRESENED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
KALABURAGI BENCH, KALABURAGI.
2. KAREENA W/O PREMKUMAR RATHOD,
(D/O RAJU RATHOD)
AGE:18 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. ARJUNGI TANDA, TQ. AFZALPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585 100.
NOW RESIDING AT POONA (MAHARASHTRA)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANILKUMAR NAVADAGI, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528
OF BNSS (482 OF CR.P.C), PRAYING TO, A) CALL FOR THE
RECORDS. B) QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS SO FAR AS IT
PERTAINS TO THIS PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2, NO.3, NO.8
AND NO.9 IN SPL.C NO.311/2025 (CRIME NO.46/2025)
PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
FTSC-I (POCSO) AT KALABURAGI IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
IN CRL.P NO.200269/2026:
BETWEEN:
1.
AAKASH S/O KHEMU RATHOD,
AGE:27 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARJUNGI TANDA, TQ. AFZALPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585 100
2.
MANJULABAI W/O DEELIP CHAVAN,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD, AGE:34 YEARS,
R/O. K B LAYOUT, INDI TQ. INDI,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
3. GANDHI BAI W/O SHREEMANT CHAUHAN,
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. ARJUNGI TANDA, TQ. AFZALPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585 100.
4. TIPPU S/O NARASING CHAVAN,
AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANGOLI NAGANNA & RUDRESH B. KERUDI,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REVOOR POLICE STATION,
TQ. AFZALPUR, PRESENTLY
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
KALABURAGI BENCH, KALABURAGI.
2. KAREENA W/O PREMKUMAR RATHOD,
(D/O RAJU RATHOD),
AGE:18 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. ARJUNGI TANDA, TQ. AFZALPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585 100.
NOW RESIDING AT POONA, (MAHARASHTRA)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANILKUMAR NAVADAGI, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
528 OF BNSS (482 OF CR.P.C), PRAYING TO, A) CALL FOR
THE RECORDS. B) QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS SO FAR AS
IT PERTAINS TO THIS PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.4, NO.5,
NO.6 AND NO.7 IN SPL.C.NO.311/2025 (CRIME
NO.46/2025) PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-I (POCSO) COURT AT KALABURAGI
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.07.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’ THIS DAY AND ORDER WAS
MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
CAV ORDER
The petition in Crl.P.No.200269 of 2026 is filed by
petitioners (the accused No.4 to 7) and Crl.P.No.200270
of 2026 is filed by the petitioners (accused No.2, 3, 8
and 9) under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023/ Section
482 of the Cr.P.C., praying for an order to allow the
petition and quash the entire proceedings of the case in
Spl.Case No.311/2025, pending before the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTCS–I (POCSO)
Court, Kalaburagi (for short ‘the Special Court’), arising
out of Crime No.46/2025 of the respondent No.1 Police,
for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 85,
89, 133, 115(2), 189(2), 191(1), 191(2), 351(2), 352 read
with 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short
‘BNS’) and Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’),
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘DP
Act’) and Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act, 2006 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. Since both the petitions are arising out of the
same case, they are taken up together for final disposal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to
the petitions are referred to in their ranking as stated
before the trial Court.
4. The prosecution was set into motion against
the accused No.2 to 9 and accused No.1 for the alleged
offences on the complaint of the respondent No.2. The
case of the prosecution is that in the year 2020, the
complainant/ victim was staying in the house of her
relative in Pune. She had in acquaintance with the
accused No.1. He induced and promised her to marry
and had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter on
19.03.2020 when she was minor, her marriage was
performed with accused No.1. At that time, the cash
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, Motorcycle and 5 tholas of
gold was given to the accused No. 1 as dowry.
Thereafter, the victim got married to the accused No.1 in
matrimonial home at Arjungi Thanda. At that time the
accused No.2 and 3 were residing along with accused
No.1. The accused No.4 to 9 are family members of the
accused No.1. They were residing in the same village
and they were often visiting the matrimonial house of
the complainant. After six months of the marriage, the
accused No. 1 started giving trouble to the complainant
stating that she did not know cooking, her parents did
not give substantial dowry and if the accused No.1
would have married some other girl, he would have got
Rs.5,00,000 and 10 tholas of gold as dowry. Thereafter,
on 14.08.2020, the accused No.1 quarreled with the
victim and removed her from matrimonial home. Hence,
she went to her parents' house. Thereafter on
17.08.2020 Panchayath was convened and it was
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
advised that the accused No.1 should not demand
dowry and give ill-treatment to the victim. Hence, the
victim went to matrimonial home and led her marital life
with the accused No.1. At that time she gave birth to a
male child by name Riyansh. When the said child was 2
years old, his health was not good. The accused No.1 to
3 did not cooperate with the victim to provide medical
aid to her child. The accused No.1 to 3 along with other
accused persons again started demanding the victim to
bring dowry of Rs.5,00,000 and the additional gold of 5
tholas and told that if the additional dowry was given,
they could use the same for providing medical
assistance to the child of the victim. Thereafter, there
was quarrel again and the accused No.1 to 3 removed
the complainant from the matrimonial home and
therefore, she went to her parents' house again. Hence,
the parents of the victim by selling their property
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
provided medical aid to the child of the victim by
spending about Rs.12 to 13 lakh.
5. When the matter stood thus, again in the year
2025, the panchayat was convened to resolve the matter
between the victim and the accused No.1. In the
Panchayat, the accused No.1 to 3 agreed to pay half of
the medical expenses incurred for the treatment of the
child of the victim. After the panchayath, the victim
went back to her matrimonial home on 08.05.2025 and
thereafter lead her marital life for some months and she
was conceived. At that time, the accused persons were
insisting her for abortion stating that the financial
condition of the accused No.1 would not permit him to
look after two children. Despite the fact that the victim/
complainant told that her first child was having health
problem and therefore it was advisable to have another
child, the accused persons were insisting her for
abortion and on 30.07.2025, the accused persons
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
forcibly administered medicine to her by mixing in fruit
juice, due to which the victim started feeling stomach
pain, which resulted in abortion and the unscientific
abortion would adversely affect health of the victim. The
parents of the victim after coming to know of the said
fact, again conveyed panchayat. In the panchayat, the
father of the victim told about getting the victim aborted
by administering medicine and the accused No.1
quarreled with the father of the victim and abused him
with filthy language. All the accused persons assaulted
the father of the victim. When the mother of the victim
tried to intervene, the accused No.5 to 9 abused her in
single language and assaulted her with hands and
damaged her mangala sutra. The accused persons
assaulted one Aakash, relative of the victim and abused
him in filthy language. After the incident, the accused
persons removed the victim from matrimonial house
stating that she should not come to their house. The
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
accused persons also threatened the victim that if she
lodged any complaint they would kill her by vehicle
accident by dashing the vehicle. Therefore, on the
complaint of the victim, the case was registered against
the petitioners and the accused No.1 as per the Crime
No.46/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections
64(2)(m), 85, 89, 133, 115(2), 189(2), 191(1), 191(2),
351(2), 352 read with 190 of BNS and Sections 4 & 6 of
POCSO Act , Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and Sections 9
& 10 of the Act.
6. The respondent No.1 police took up
investigation. After completion of the investigation, they
filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 9 and
also against parents of the victim showing them as the
accused No.10 and 11 for the offences punishable under
Sections 64(2)(m), 85, 89, 133, 115(2), 189(2), 191(1),
191(2), 351(2), 352 read with 190 of BNS and Sections 4
and 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
Sections 9 & 10 of the Act. Thereafter, the learned
Special Judge has taken cognizance of the aforesaid
offences and registered the case against the accused
No.1 to 9 and also against the accused No.10 and 11 for
the alleged offences as per Spl.Case No.311/2025.
7. Being aggrieved by the registration of the
case, the accused No.2 to 9 have come up with these
petitions praying for an order to quash the proceedings
against them on the ground that the case registered by
the complainant is not maintainable and the allegations
made against them are vague, omnibus and bereft of
any specific overt acts.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
accused No.2 to 9 that the complaint averments prima
facie do not disclose essential ingredients of the alleged
offences. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings
against the accused No. 2 to 9 amounts to abuse of
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
process of law. There is mechanical prosecution of
distant relatives of the accused No.1 in matrimonial
dispute and same should be obviated. Further, the
accused No.2 and 3 are aged parents and the accused
No.5 and 6 are married sisters of accused No.1 living
separately and other accused are no way connected. The
accused No.2 to 9 are no way connected the family of
the accused No.1. The victim falsely implicated the
accused No.2 to 9 due to her vindictive mind without
any allegations of their direct involvement in the
incident.
9. It is further submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioners that there is delay of nearly one
month in lodging the complaint and the last incident
alleged in the complaint is dated 26.07.2025. The
dispute between the complainant and the accused No.1
is essentially a matrimonial in nature and the criminal
proceedings initiated is with oblique motive to exert
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
pressure and for certain personal scores. The
continuation of criminal proceedings against the
accused No. 2 to 9 would result in gross miscarriage of
justice and this Court is empowered to prevent such
abuse of process of law. Therefore, the accused No. 2 to
9 have sought for quashing the impugned proceedings.
10. In spite of service of notice on the petitions,
the victim being respondent No.2 has not chosen to
appear and contest the petitions.
11. The respondent No.1 police is represented by
the learned Additional SPP and he has orally objected to
the petition submitting that the investigation is already
over and the charge sheet is filed in the case. There are
sufficient materials forthcoming against the accused
No.2 to 9 along with other accused persons for the
alleged offences and hence, quashing the proceedings
against the accused No.2 to 9 does not merit
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
consideration at this stage. Any of the grounds urged by
the accused No.1 to 9 are regarding merits of the case,
which should be considered only in the evidence on trial
before the trial Court. Hence, the learned Addl. SPP has
sought for dismissal of both the petitions.
12. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the accused No.2 to 9/petitioners and also learned
Addl. SPP for the respondent No.1 on both the petitions.
Perused the relevant materials on record. Now the point
that arises for the consideration is:
Whether the petitioners/ accused No.2 to 9 have
made out any ground to show that the
continuation of the proceedings in the case
before them is abuse of process of law and
hence the same should be quashed as sought
for in the petition ?
13. The fact that the accused No.2 and 3 are
parents, the accused No.4 is brother, the accused No.5
and 6 are sisters and the accused No.7 to 9 are relatives
of the accused No.1 is not in dispute. It is also not in
dispute that the accused No.1 is husband of the victim
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
he married her on 19.03.2020. As per the contention of
the victim, she was aged 18 years as on the date of
giving complainant to the police and that she was minor
at the time of her marriage with the accused No.1.
14. At this stage itself, it is relevant to note that
the prosecution has produced the school Certificate
issued by the Headmaster of the Government Higher
Primary School of Arjunagi Thanda and as per the said
document, the date of birth of the victim is 19.12.2007.
The said fact is not disputed by the petitioners herein.
Therefore, prima facie, it would be clear that the victim
was within the age of 13 years as on the date of her
marriage. The date of marriage and the date of birth of
the victim is not disputed by the accused No.2 to 9 in
the petitions on hand.
15. However, the main submission of the learned
counsel for the accused No. 2 to 9 in the petitions is
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
that bald allegations are made against the accused No.2
to 9 without there being any specific overt act and
therefore, no case can be made out against them for the
alleged offences.
16. Per contra , as submitted by the learned
Additional SPP, there are specific allegations in the
complaint that as on the date of marriage of the victim
with the accused No.1 i.e. on 19.03.2020, the victim
was minor and at the time of marriage, the amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and five tholas of gold was given
by the parents of the victim to the accused No.1 and
after 6 months of the marriage, the accused No.1 along
with accused No.2 to 9 started to give mental
harassment mentally and physically to the victim by
demanding dowry. Moreover, the fact that the victim
gave birth to a male child out of the wedlock between
the victim and the accused No.1 is not in dispute.
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
17. The complaint was given by the victim in
detail, wherein the specific allegations are made against
the accused No.1, the accused No.2 to 4 and the
accused No.5 to 9. As pointed out by the learned
Additional SPP, the cause of action for giving complaint
is an incident occurred on 26.07.2025. There is specific
averment in the complaint that the Panchayath was
convened on three occasions i.e., on 17.08.2020, in the
year 2025 and also after the incident of 30.07.2025.
There are specific allegations made against the accused
No.2 to 9.
18. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the
accused No.2 to 9, in the statement of the victim
recorded by the learned Magistrate on 01.09.2025
under Section 183(5) of BNSS, the allegations are made
only against the accused No.1 and the said statement is
not in accordance with the complaint averments and
therefore there is no case made out against the
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
petitioners/ accused No. 2 to 9 who are the petitioners
herein.
19. However, as pointed out by the learned Addl.
SPP, if the complaint averments and the statement
given by the victim before the police during the
investigation are considered, there are sufficient
materials against the accused No.2 to 9 regarding their
involvement in the alleged incident. Further, as per the
statement of the victim given before the police during
the investigation, the relevant portion reads thus:
“¢£ÁAPÀ: 30/07/2025 gÀAzÀÄ CdÄðtV vÁAqÁzÀ°ègÀĪÀ £ÀªÀÄä
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀUÉ gÁwæ 10 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ, £ÀªÀÄä
£ÁzÀ¤AiÀÄgÁzÀ ªÀÄAdļÁ, UÁA¢ü ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £Á®ÆÌ d£ÀgÀÄ
PÀÆr £À£ÀUÉ MwÛAiÀiÁV »rzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ dÆå¸ï£À°è
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÆà OµÀzsÀ¨Égɹ £À£ÀUÉ PÀÄr¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É. DUÀ £À£ÀUÉ JgÀqÀÄ
¢ªÀ¸ÀUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ ºÉÆmÉÖ £ÉÆêÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ:01/08/2025gÀAzÀÄ
gÁwæAiÀÄ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß ºÉÆmÉÖ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄ®VgÀĪÁUÀ¯ÉÃ
©¢ÝgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”
20. Moreover, the relevant portion of the said
statement of the victim also reads thus:
“¢£ÁAPÀ: 04/08/2025 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä CdÄðtV vÁAqÁPÉÌ
£ÀªÀÄä §¼ÀÆVð vÁAqÁzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ ªÀÄÄRAqÀgÁzÀ
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
£ÁªÀÄzÉêÀ xÁªÀgÀÆ gÁoÉÆÃqÀ, PÀ©ÃgÀ zsÉãÀÄ gÁoÉÆÃqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
£ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÁzÀ ¸ÀÄ«ÄvÁæ¨Á¬Ä gÁoÉÆÃqÀ, PÁ²Ã¨Á¬Ä
gÁoÉÆÃqÀgÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ §A¢gÀĪÀ £ÀªÀÄä CfÓ ±ÁAvÁ¨Á¬Ä, £ÀªÀÄä
vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁPÉà §A¢¢ÝÃj CAvÀ PÉüÀ®Ä
£ÀªÀÄä £ÁªÀÄzÉêÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÀÄä vÁAqÁzÀ w¥ÀÄà ZÀªÁít E§âgÀÆ
£ÀªÀÄUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:26/07/2025 gÀAzÀÄ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¤£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ ¥sÉÆãï PÉÆqÀÄ CAvÀ ºÉýzÁUÀ
CªÀ¼ÀÄ ¥sÉÆä£À°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÀÄZÀÄÑ-ºÀÄZÀÄÑ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁݼÉ
¤ÃªÀÅ ¨É½UÉÎ §AzÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® ºÉÆÃVj ¨ÉÃUÀ §¤ßj CAvÀ
ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¤£Àß vÀAV £ÉÊ£Á½UÉ ºÉjUÉ
DVzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀî®Ä AiÀiÁgÀÆ E®èzÀ PÁgÀt C½UÉ
©lÄÖ §gÀ®Ä DUÀzÉ FUÀ CªÀ¼À ºÀwÛgÀ EgÀ®Ä ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ
ºÉý FUÀ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÀ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁVAiÉÄÃ
EzÉÝÃ£É £À£ÀUÉ MvÁÛAiÀÄ¢AzÀ OµÀzsÀºÁQ £À£Àß ºÉÆmÉÖ PÉqÀ«gÀĪÀ
«µÀAiÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. DUÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉUÉ §A¢gÀĪÀ
£ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ ªÀÄÄRAqÀgÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ
£ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ £À£Àß ºÉÆmÉÖ PÉqÀ«zÀ §UÉÎ PÉüÀ®Ä £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä
vÀAzÉUÉ ¨sÉÆøÀr ªÀÄUÀ£É ºÀÄAqÁå §AUÁgÀ PÉÆqÀÄ CAzÀæ£ÀÄ PÉÆnÖ®è
FUÀ JgÀqÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̽V ºÀqÀzÀgÀ £Á ºÁåAUÀ ¸ÁPÁzÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ
JµÀÄÖ ºÉýzÀgÀ£ÀÆ PÉý gÉÆPÀÌ §AUÁgÀ PÉÆnÖ®è £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄUÀÄ
¨ÉÃPÁV®è CzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆmÉÖ PÉqÀ«zÉÝÃ£É CzÀÄ ¤Ã K£À PÉüÀw
CAvÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄÝ vÀ£Àß PÁ®°èAiÀÄ ZÀ¥Àà°¬ÄAzÀ vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¨É¤ß£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÆqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛ£É DUÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁªÀ SÉêÀÄÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¸ÀA§A¢üPÀ w¥ÀÄà ZÀªÁít EªÀgÉ®ègÀÆ PÀÆr £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉUÉ
ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ C°èAiÉÄà EzÀÝ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄzsÉå ºÉÆÃV
©r¹PÉƼÀÄîªÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄä £ÁzÀ¤AiÀÄgÁzÀ ªÀÄAdļÁ, UÁA¢ü ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÁzÀ GvÀÛªÀÄ w¥ÀÄà ZÀªÁít ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢°Ã¥À w¥ÀÄà ZÀªÁít
EªÀgÉ®ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃj £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬ÄUÉ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀĤ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw ªÀiÁqÀ°PÀÌ
§gÀwà gÀArà CAvÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄÝ PÉʬÄAzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ
PÉÆgÀ¼À°è£À vÁ½ ºÀj¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DUÀ ªÀÄzsÉå ©r¸À®Ä ºÉÆÃzÀ £À£ÀUÉ
£ÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁªÀ, ªÉÄÊzÀÄ£À DPÁ±À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄƪÀgÀÆ PÀÆr
£À£ÀUÉ gÀArà ¤Ã£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV §gÀwà CAvÀ ºÉý PÉʬÄAzÀ
ºÉÆqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DUÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ £ÁªÀÄzÉêÀ, PÀ©ÃgÀ, ±ÁAvÁ¨Á¬Ä,
¸ÀÄ«ÄvÁæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ²¨Á¬Ä J®ègÀÆ PÀÆr ©r¹PÉÆArgÀĪÁUÀ E£ÀÄß
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀ¨ÉÃqÀ ¤£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÉÆA¢UÉ EgÀĺÉÆÃUÀÄ, ºÀÄAqÉ §AUÁgÀvÀUÉÆAqÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ
¥ÉæêÀÄPÀĪÀiÁgÀ¤UÉ E£ÉÆßÃAzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÀ ºÉý £À£ÀUÉ
ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DUÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä
ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV PÉøÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÀ ºÉýzÁUÀ
£À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀgÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¨É£Àß
»AzÉAiÉÄ fÃ¥À vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÁ¬Ä¹ C¯ÉèÃ
¸Á¬Ä¹ C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è ¸ÀwÛzÁÝgÉ CAvÀ ºÉüÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÉÃUÉ
ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛÃj £ÉÆÃqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÀ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ DUÀ £ÀªÉÆäA¢UÉ
§A¢gÀĪÀ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀÄ FUÀ EªÀgÉ®ègÀÆ ¹nÖ£À°èzÁÝgÉ
£ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄvÉÛ §AzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ ªÀÄÄRAqÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ªÀiÁvÁqÉÆÃt
£ÀqɬÄj CAvÀ ºÉý £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÉÆ£ÁPÉÌ CªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ
ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.”
21. One of the grounds urged by the petitioners is
that there is delay in filing the complaint. But it is
undisputed fact that the alleged incident is a genesis of
the matrimonial dispute between the victim and the
accused No.1. Therefore, usually the victim/ wife while
giving the complaint to the police would wait for
sometime to set right the relationship between herself
and her husband/ accused No.1. Further, the factum of
delay in filing the complaint is a matter to be explained
by the victim in the trial of the case. At this stage, mere
delay in filing the complaint cannot be ground to come
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
to the conclusion that the case initiated against the
accused No. 2 to 9 is abuse of process of law.
22. Learned counsel for the accused No.2 to 9 has
drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of the
Kahkashan Kausar @
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Sonam & Others Vs State of Bihar & Others reported in
(2022) 6 SCC 599 , wherein it is held that the criminal
proceedings against the relatives based on general and
omnibus allegations deserve to be quashed.
23. The learned counsel for the accused No.2 to 9
has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs Bhajan
Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 ,
wherein it is laid down that the criminal proceedings in
the multiple disputes can be quashed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C.
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
24. Further, it is the submission of the learned
counsel for the accused No.2 to 9 that the Hon'ble Apex
Court has cautioned against mechanical prosecution of
distant relatives in matrimonial disputes and in support
of his contention, he has relied on the decision of Preeti
Gupta and another Vs State of Jharkhand and another
2010) 7 SCC 667
reported in ( .
25. The submission of the learned counsel for the
accused No.2 to 9 is that the parents may not be
prosecuted on the basis of bald allegations without
material particulars and in support of this contention,
he has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra
and another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 .
26. Further, when the married sisters of the
husband are residing separately, initiating prosecution
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
against them amounts to misuse of criminal law and in
support of this contention, the learned counsel for the
accused No.2 to 9 has drawn the attention of this Court
to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in K.Subba Rao
and Others Vs State of Telangana and Others
reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 . Regarding the delay in
filing the complaint, the learned Counsel for the
accused No.2 to 9 has relied on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thulia Kali Vs State
of Tamil Nadu reported in (1972) 3 SCC 393 .
27. The submission of the learned counsel for the
accused No.2 to 9 is that the criminal proceedings
arising out of after matrimonial civil dispute should be
quashed when used for coercion and in support of his
argument, he has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble
G.Sagar Suri and another Vs
Apex Court in the case of
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in ( 2000) 2
SCC 636 .
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
28. There is absolutely no dispute regarding the
principles of law laid down in the above referred cases.
But as discussed herein above, the complaint averments
and the further statement of the victim given before the
respondent No.1 Police during the investigation would
show that there are sufficient materials against the
accused No. 2 to 9 also for the alleged offences.
29. The submission of the learned counsel for the
accused No.2 to 9 is that this Court has got inherent
power to quash the proceedings, as continuation of
such cases would be unjust. However, the learned
counsel for the accused No.2 to 9 has relied on the
decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeharika Instructure
Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra 2021) 6
reported in (
SCC 73 .
30. There is also no dispute regarding the
principle in the above said decision that this Court has
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS (earlier
Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) to quash the proceedings if
continuation of such proceedings in criminal case would
be unjust. But in the case on hand, as per the materials
forthcoming from the prosecution, it would be clear that
the victim was aged within 13 years as on the date of
her marriage with the accused No.1 and such marriage
would be in contravention of the provisions of the Act.
31. Further, the parents of the victim are also
made the accused No.10 and 11 in the case, as there is
case against them for the offences under the Act. It is
true that the offence punishable under Section 4 and 6
of POCSO Act and Section 64(2)(m) of BNS would be
against accused No.1 only. But the allegations are made
against the parents of the accused No.1, who are the
accused No.2 and 3 in the case regarding taking dowry
and also subsequently demand of dowry. Therefore,
there are prima facie materials against the accused No.2
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
and 3 who are undisputedly the parents-in-law, the
accused No.2 who is brother-in-law and accused No.5
and 6 who are sisters-in-law of the victim for the
offences punishable under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. Moreover, regarding the specific
allegations made in the complaint, the other offences
would be against all the accused persons including the
accused No. 2 to 9 along with accused No.1.
32. As discussed earlier above, proving of the
allegations made in the complaint and the explanation
regarding delay in filing the complaint by the victim are
the matters to be adjudicated on the merits of the case
during trial. Hence at this stage, while considering
prima facie materials against the petitioners, the
contentions of the accused No.2 to 9 that there is no
prima facie case against them does not have any legs to
stand on the facts and circumstances of the case.
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
33. Any of the submissions of the learned counsel
for the accused No.2 to 9 does not merit consideration
to come to the conclusion that the criminal case
initiated against the accused No.2 to 9 is merely an
abuse of process of law and thereby such criminal
proceedings should be quashed by this Court under
Section 528 of BNSS. Consequently, the accused No.2 to
9 have failed to make out any ground to quash the
proceedings of the case as sought for in the petitions.
Hence, both the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
34. In the result, answering the above point in
negative, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Petition Nos. 200269 of 2026
filed by the petitioners/ accused No.4 to 7 is
dismissed.
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11876
CRL.P No. 200270 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 200269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030010662026
The Criminal Petition No.200270 of 2026
filed by petitioners/ accused No. 2, 3, 8 and 9
is also dismissed.
Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
JUDGE
MBB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65