- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6617 CRL.P No. 5038 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5038 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MRS GAYATHRI SEN W/O MR. SUJIT SEN AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 2. MR. SURAJIT SEN S/O MR. BIMALENDU SEN AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O 1434, 8th CROSS, 13th MAIN, 1st PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, 2nd STAGE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SOUTH EAST WOMAN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. MRS. APURVA PRASANNA W/O MR. SIDDHARTH SEN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O BRIGADE MEADOWS B-1, B4 103, SAALU HUNASEHOBLI, UDAYAPURA POST BENGALURU 560 082. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1; SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADV. FOR R2) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6617 CRL.P No. 5038 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING NO.5/2024 REGISTERED WITH THE SOUTH EAST WOMAN POLICE STATION AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE XXXIX CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU WHEREIN THE PETITIONER HEREIN ARE ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 3 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 498-A, 504, 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF DP ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners are the parents of Siddharth Sen, husband of 2nd respondent – complainant, who filed the instant complaint dated 20.03.2024 pursuant to which the 1st respondent – police authorities registered an FIR in Crime No.5/2024 against the petitioners – accused Nos.2 and 3 and their son, accused No.1 for alleged offences under Section 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved by the impugned compliant and FIR registered against them, petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6617 CRL.P No. 5038 of 2024 3. A perusal of the material on record, in particular, the impugned complaint will indicate that all the allegations made by the 2nd respondent – complainant are primarily / mainly directed against her husband – accused No.1 and except for vague, bald and omnibus allegations, no specific allegations or instances of commission of the offences have been made by 2nd respondent – complainant against her parents-in-law, the petitioners herein, who have clearly been unnecessarily dragged into the instant proceedings with malafide intentions and ulterior / oblique motives by the 2nd respondent – complainant without there being any legal or acceptable allegations or material against them in this regard. In fact, a bare perusal / reading of the impugned complaint / FIR will clearly indicate that neither the commission of the alleged offences are disclosed nor the ingredients constituting the alleged offences are forthcoming as against the petitioners – accused Nos.2 and 3. In this context, it is relevant to state that repeatedly, the Apex Court as well as this Court has held that dragging the in-laws into matrimonial disputes tantamounts to abuse of process of law as held in several judgments including the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Digambar Vs. State of Maharashtra – (2024) SCC Online SC 3836 and as such, the impugned - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6617 CRL.P No. 5038 of 2024 proceedings qua the petitioners – accused Nos.2 and 3 deserve to be quashed. 4. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.5/2024 of South East Women Police Station pending on the file of the XXXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar as the petitioners – accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned is hereby quashed. (iii) It is needless to state that quashment of the FIR as against the petitioners – accused Nos.2 and 3 will not come in the way of respondent No.1 – Police Authorities continuing with investigation as against accused No.1. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE RB / SV