Gomathi Acharya v. State - Criminal Petition

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 7, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Smt. Gomathi Acharya vs The State on 18 March, 2026

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4326
CRL.P No. 100744 of 2024

                   HC-KAR

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

                            DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2026

                                           BEFORE

                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

                             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100744 OF 2024
                                    (482([Cr.PC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/))/528(BNSS))

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SMT. GOMATHI ACHARYA
                         W/O. LATE JAYATHERTHA ACHARYA,
                         AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                         R/O. H.NO.6/26, BRAHMIN STREET,
                         NEAR KRISHNA MANDIR,
                         MALAKEDA, TQ: SEDAM,
                         DIST: KALABURAGI,
                         MALAKEDA-585292.

VISHAL
NINGAPPA 2. PRAHALAD ACHARYA
PATTIHAL S/O. LATE JAYATEERTH ACHARYA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
R/O. H.NO.6/26, BRAHMIN STEET,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
NEAR KRISHNA MANDIR, MALAKEDA,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH TQ: SEDAM, DIST: KALABURAGI,
MALAKEDA-585292.
... PETITIONERS

                   (BY SRI. SADANAND M.KENCHARAVAT, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    THE STATE
                         THROUGH TUNGA BHADRA DAM
                         POLICE STATION HOSPETH,
                         TQ: HOSPETH, VIJAYANAGAR DIST.,
                           -2-
                                     NC: 2026:KHC-D:4326
                                CRL.P No. 100744 of 2024

HC-KAR

 DIST: HOSPETH, REPRESENTED BY SPP,
 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
 BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011.

1. BHAGYASHREE J. W/O. VENKATESH ACHARYA
   AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
   OCC: ASSISTANT MANAGER,
   AT KARNATAKA GRAMIN BANK,
   HITNAL BRANCH, R/O. H.NO.60/2 DPLC,
   NEAR NETAJI PARK, T.B. DAM HOSPETH,
   TQ: HOSPET, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583225.

                                       ... RESPONDENTS
   

   (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
   NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

   THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
   CR.P.C., SEEKING TO EXERCISE ITS INHERENT POWERS
   AND JURISDICTION U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., 1973 PRAYING TO
   QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1076/2023 PENDING
   ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. JMFC AT HOSPETH
   VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, WHICH WAS REGISTERED IN
   CRIME NO.34/2023 AND FILED THE CHARGE SHEET FOR
   THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A), 420 OF IPC, AND
   3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT R/W 34 OF IPC, AGAINST THE
   PETITIONERS; AND ETC.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4326
CRL.P No. 100744 of 2024

HC-KAR

                   ORAL ORDER 1.    This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners

herein (accused Nos.2 and 3) under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1076 of

2023 pending on the file of the II Additional JMFC at

Hosapete, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, arising out of Crime No. 34 of 2023 of T.B.

Dam Police Station, Tunga Bhadra Dam Circle, Vijayanagar.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for respondent No.1, the State. Notice upon

respondent No. 2 has been served; however, respondent No. 2

remained absent and unrepresented.

1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

contended that the allegations against the petitioners -

accused Nos.2 and 3 - are only omnibus in nature. The

complainant has been residing near T.B. Dam, Hosapete,

since last two years. The complainant has filed a divorce -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4326 CRL.P No. 100744 of 2024 HC-KAR

petition in M.C. No.82 of 2024 on the file of the Principal

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, which has not been

contested by the husband, and a decree of divorce has been

granted by judgment and decree dated 19.08.2015. The

husband is now making efforts for settlement of the matter

with the complainant. It is further contended that the

complainant resided in the matrimonial house only for 2-3

months and thereafter started residing separately at her

workplace i.e., Kalaburagi by making a separate residence.

During June 2022, she was transferred from Kalaburagi to

Koppal. On these grounds, the learned counsel prayed for

quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners.

1. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader would contend that petitioner No.1 (accused No.2) is

the mother-in-law and petitioner No.2 (accused No.3) is the

brother-in-law of the complainant. On perusal of the

averments in the complaint, there are specific allegations

against petitioner No.2 (accused No.3), namely that he

assaulted the complainant by tying her hands. There are also -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4326 CRL.P No. 100744 of 2024 HC-KAR

allegations against petitioner No.1 (accused No.2) regarding

demand and acceptance of dowry at the time of marriage.

CWs.12 and 14 are cited as eyewitnesses. Hence, the learned

HCGP prays for rejection of the petition.

1. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it is

seen that the marriage of the complainant with accused No.1

took place on 30.05.2021. At the time of marriage, the

complainant was working in Karnataka Grameena Bank, T.B.

Dam Branch, Hosapete. Thereafter, at the instance and

insistence of accused No.1 and the petitioners, she got

transferred to Kalaburagi Branch. As per the averments in the

complaint, she used to travel daily from her husband's house

at Malkhed to her workplace situated in Kalaburagi, for about

three months, and thereafter she started residing near her

workplace.

1. The allegation against accused No.1 is that he

used to suspect the complainant of having an illicit

relationship with her colleagues upon receiving phone calls -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4326 CRL.P No. 100744 of 2024 HC-KAR

from them. As per the complaint, on 09.04.2022, the

complainant returned to her parental house, remained absent

for duty for two months, and was later transferred to another

branch at Hitnal, Koppal District.

1. Considering the said allegations, the complainant

resided with the petitioners only for a period of about three

months, and during this period she used to travel daily to her

workplace at Kalaburagi. The allegations made against the

petitioners in the complaint are omnibus in nature. Though

eyewitnesses are cited, none are neighbours from Malkhed.

The witnesses cited in the charge sheet, i.e., CWs.9 and 12 to

14, are relatives of the complainant and residents of

Hosapete. No independent eyewitnesses, neighbours of the

petitioners, have been cited.

1. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of [KAHKASHAN KAUSAR ALIAS SONAM AND OTHERS VS.

STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS1](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/76640285/) wherein at paragraph

Nos.17 and 21, has observed as under:"

1

(2022) 6 SCC 599 -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4326 CRL.P No. 100744 of 2024 HC-KAR

"17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances
expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC
and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of
the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing
the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant
as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the
said judgments that false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial
dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the
process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its
judgments has warned the courts from proceeding
against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when
no prima facie case is made out against them.
21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant
circumstances and in the absence of any specific role
attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust
if the Appellants are forced to go through the
tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus
allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the
relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to
undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in
varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an
eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the
accused, and such an exercise must therefore be
discouraged."

1. Considering the material on record, this Court is of

the opinion that the petitioners have made out a case for

quashing the proceedings. In the result, the following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
-8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4326 CRL.P No. 100744 of 2024 HC-KAR

(ii) The proceedings against the petitioners in

         C.C. No. 1076 of 2023 pending on the file of

         the II Additional JMFC, Hosapete, arising out

         of Crime No. 34 of 2023 of T.B. Dam Police

         Station,    registered   for   the    offences

         punishable under [Section 498-A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/538436/) of IPC and [Sections 3](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/751411/) and [4](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1023340/) of the Dowry Prohibition

         Act, are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
VNP / CT: VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14