Khemu & Ors. vs The State Of Karnataka & Anr.

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’), 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’).

Since both the petitions are arising out of the same case, they are taken up together for final disposal.

For the sake of convenience, the parties to the petitions are referred to in their ranking as stated before the trial Court.

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 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 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 provided medical aid to the child of the victim by spending about Rs.12 to 13 lakh.

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 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

In spite of service of notice on the petitions, the victim being respondent No.2 has not chosen to appear and contest the petitions.

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 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.

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?

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 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.

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.

However, the main submission of the learned counsel for the accused No. 2 to 9 in the petitions is 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.

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.

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.

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 petitioners/ accused No. 2 to 9 who are the petitioners herein.

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:

Moreover, the relevant portion of the said statement of the victim also reads thus:

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 to the conclusion that the case initiated against the accused No. 2 to 9 is abuse of process of law.

Learned counsel for the accused No.2 to 9 has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ 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.

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.

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 reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667.

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.

Further, when the married sisters of the husband are residing separately, initiating prosecution 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.

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 Apex Court in the case of G.Sagar Suri and another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636.

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.

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 reported in (2021) 6 SCC 73.

There is also no dispute regarding the principle in the above said decision that this Court has 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

In the result, answering the above point in negative, I proceed to pass the following:

The Criminal Petition Nos. 200269 of 2026 filed by the petitioners/ accused No.4 to 7 is dismissed. The Criminal Petition No.200270 of 2026 filed by petitioners/ accused No. 2, 3, 8 and 9 is also dismissed.