Heard Sri. Ravi B. Patil, the learned counsel for the

petitioners, Sri. Gururaj V. Hasilkar, the learned High

Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 - State

and Sri. Anilkumar Navadagi, the learned counsel for the

respondent No.2 - complainant.

02. It is case of the prosecution that the respondent

No.2 married the accused No.1, on 02.05.2017. After the

marriage she started residing with her in-laws’. It is

further stated in the complaint that, her in-laws were

taking care of her nicely for almost one year, thereafter,

all the petitioners including the accused No.1 used to

assault her even for petty reasons, insulted and humiliated

her on one or the other pretext and also instructed her

that, she should not call her parents nor go to the parents’

house etc. It is further alleged that, she was not being

taken proper care by her husband and in-laws in the

matrimonial

house.

As such, respondent No.2

has

informed to her relatives and parents regarding ill-

- 5 -

treatment meted out in the matrimonial house. Her

parents and relatives have conducted the panchayats

many times in the matrimonial house and instructed

petitioners to take care properly. In spite of advise having

been given to the petitioners, they did not mend their

ways and did not take care of the respondent No.2

properly. Consequently, the respondent No.2 returned to

her parents’ house and started residing with her parents.

On 05.08.2022 at about 06.00 p.m. when the respondent

No.2 was in her parents’ house, the accused No.1 entered

the house by screaming and started abusing the

respondent No.2 in a filthy language and also assaulting

her indiscriminately, without any reason. The family

members of the respondent No.2 have stopped the quarrel

and pacified the quarrel. Thereafter, they have decided to

lodge a complaint. A complaint came to be lodged by her

on 17.11.2022 in Crime No.69/2022 for the offences under

Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of

IPC.

- 6 -

03. It is the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioners that the complainant / respondent No.2 was

not residing in the matrimonial home and she has left the

house in the month of May 2021 and started residing with

her parents’ house. It is further submitted that, the

petitioners No.1 and 2 are aged parents and petitioners

Nos.3 and 4 are elder brother and sister-in-law of accused

No.1 and they have been falsely implicated in this case in

order to take revenge. The averments of the complaint

disclose that the omnibus allegations and no particular

incident or overt-act attributed against the petitioners

No.3 and 4. The petitioners No.1 and 2 are aged parents

of the accused No.1, even if they are subjected to face the

trial the possibility of conviction is remote. Hence it is

appropriate

to

quash

the

proceedings

against

the

petitioners in order to secure the ends of justice. To

substantiate his contention, the learned counsel for the

petitioners relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma & Others v. State

- 7 -

of U.P. & Another¹, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar²

and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar³.

04. Per contra, Sri. Anilkumar Navadagi, learned

counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the

petition stating that, by filing this petition, the petitioners

have obtained stay and the investigation is hampered due

to the stay granted by this Court and there are allegations

made out against the petitioners and all these petitioners

have harassed, ill-treated and defamed the dignity of

respondent No.2 in public view and also assaulted her, as

a result of which, the respondent No.2 left the matrimonial

home and stayed with her parents’ house. Since, there are

allegations made out against the petitioners, prima-facie

case is made out against the petitioners and it is not a fit

case to quash the proceedings. Hence, the learned counsel

for the respondent No.2 prays to dismiss the petition.

1 (2018) 10 SCC 472

2 (2014) 8 SCC 273