- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15039 CRL.P No. 2119 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2119 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHAYAN *ORNAL CRASTA S/O LEBIN OSWALD CRASTA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS H.NO.NO.5-26, OZY MANSION KEMMANNU, MADUTHONSE VILLAGE UDUPI DISTRICT-576 115. 2. LEBIN OSWALD CRASTA S/O LATE PETER CRASTA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS H.NO.5-26, OZY MANSION KEMMANNU, MADUTHONSE VILLAGE UDUPI DISTRICT-576 115. PRESENTLY AT BUILDING NO.67, FLAT NO.3 AT SULTAN COMPLEX NO.2, ZONE 56, STREET NO.230, NEAR SALWA ROAD DOHA QATAR. 3. BENITA GLADYS *MABLE CRASTA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS W/O LEBIN OSWALD CRASTA H .NO.5-26, OZY MANSION KEMMANNU, MADUTHONSE VILLAGE UDUPI DISTRICT-576 115. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE) * Corrected vide court order dated 08.09.2025 Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15039 CRL.P No. 2119 of 2024 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA MAHILA POLICE STATION UDUPI REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001. 2. *ROSHEL BRITTO AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O ANTHONY THOMAS W/O SHAYAN ORNAL CRASTA R/O SUNDARI GATE 1ST CROSS, PERAMPALLI, SHIVALLI POST AND VILLAGE UDUPI-576 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. TALHA ISMAIL BENGRE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.PC. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.4182/2023 (CR.NO.33/2020 OF MAHILA POLICE STATION, UDUPI) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., UDUPI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the petition in respect of petitioner No.1. 2. The said memo is taken on record. * Corrected vide court order dated 08.09.2025 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15039 CRL.P No. 2119 of 2024 3. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn in respect of petitioner No.1, in terms of the memo. 4. The remaining petitioners, who are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, have approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. 5. As per the prosecution, accused No.1 and the defacto-complainant were in a romantic relationship, and their marriage was solemnized on 11.02.2018. After the marriage, the defacto-complainant went to her matrimonial home, where she resided with accused No.1 (husband), and accused Nos.2 and 3 (parents-in-law). It is alleged that thereafter, all the accused abused the defacto-complainant using vulgar language, threatened her with dire consequences, and frequently picked quarrels with her over trivial issues. 6. The complaint further alleges that on 01.03.2018, the defacto-complainant accompanied accused Nos.1 and 3 to Qatar, where she continued to reside with them. During her stay there, she was allegedly subjected to both mental and physical cruelty by the accused. It is stated that accused No.3 (mother-in-law) taunted the defacto-complainant for not cooking food properly, and accused No.1 demanded that she bring Rs.5,00,000/- from her parental home. Subsequently, on 07.01.2019, accused No.1 brought the defacto-complainant back to India, left her at the matrimonial home, and informed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15039 CRL.P No. 2119 of 2024 her that he would take her back to Qatar only if she fulfilled the demand for Rs.5,00,000/-. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire cause of action, as per the complaint, arose in Qatar. He further contends that the allegations made against accused Nos.2 and 3 are omnibus and general in nature, and there are no specific overt acts attributed to them which would amount to cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC. Moreover, there is no allegation that accused Nos.2 and 3 demanded any dowry from the defacto-complainant. 8. In response, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the allegations made in the complaint, coupled with the materials in the charge sheet, prima facie disclose the commission of offences alleged against the petitioners. He contends that the veracity of the allegations can only be assessed during trial and not at the stage of quashing proceedings. He also submits that the defacto-complainant was subjected to cruelty by accused Nos.2 and 3 during her stay at the matrimonial home in India, and therefore, the complaint is maintainable. 9. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties have been duly considered. 10. On a perusal of the complaint, the statement of witnesses, and the materials in the charge sheet, it is evident that, except for vague, omnibus, and general allegations, there are no specific overt acts attributed to accused Nos.2 and 3 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15039 CRL.P No. 2119 of 2024 (the parents-in-law) detailing how and in what manner they subjected the defacto-complainant to cruelty, either mental or physical. There is also no allegation that they demanded dowry from the defacto-complainant. 11. It is well-settled that when allegations against relatives are vague and lack specific details, continuation of criminal proceedings against such persons would be unwarranted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], has held as under at paragraph 18.hementioned decisions clearly out against them.” 12. In the present case, the dispute between the parties clearly stems from a marital discord that has unfortunately been given a criminal colour, possibly driven by a desire for vengeance. In the absence of specific and substantiated allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Furthermore, the allegations even accepting on the face of it does satisfy the essential elements to constitute an offence under Section 498-A IPC. ORDER i) The criminal petition is allowed; ii) The impugned criminal proceedings in CC No.4182/2023 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15039 CRL.P No. 2119 of 2024 and JMFC Udupi insofar it relates to accused Nos.2 and 3 is hereby quashed. iii) The learned Civil Judge to to proceed with the trial against the accused No.1 in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in this Order, and the observations if any made is only for the purpose of the present petition against accused Nos.2 and 3. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52