- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3180 CRL.P No. 100277 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100277 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAVI KUMAR, S/O. DAS MALLAPPA, AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BANASHANKARI LAY-OUT/NAGAR, 7TH CROSS, TUMKUR-572101. 2. SMT. ANITA RAVI KUMAR, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BANASHANKARI LAY-OUT/NAGAR, 7TH CROSS, TUMKUR-572101. 3. SRI. PRAVEEN RAVATH, S/O. RAVI KUMAR, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. BANASHANKARI LAY-OUT/NAGAR, 7TH CROSS, TUMKUR-572101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY HOSAPETE RURAL POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING –DHARWAD. 2. SMT. VIJAYALAKSMI G., W/O. PRUTHVI RAVATH, AGE. 23, OCC. EMPLOYED IN PVT. FIRM, R/O. PLOT NO. 108, HANUMADRI NILAYA, TEACHER COLONY, M.P. PRAKASH NAGAR, HOSAPETE, DIST. BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1) (NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.20 16:40:07 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3180 CRL.P No. 100277 of 2022 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY IIND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT HOSAPETE DATED 15.12.2021 IN CC NO.2573/2021 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A), 323, 354, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 AS AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONERS REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.1/2021 OF HOSAPETE RURAL POLICE WHO ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners, who are sought to be prosecuted for offenses punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 354, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 2573/2021, pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete. 2. The prosecution alleges that the marriage of the de facto complainant with Accused No.1 was solemnized on 07.02.2020, and at the time of marriage, her parents had given money and jewelry to the family of Accused No.1. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents- in-law, and Accused No. 4 is the brother-in-law. Initially, for 15 days, all the accused treated the complainant cordially. Thereafter, Accused No.1 and the complainant began residing separately in a rented house in Tumkur, where Accused No.1 allegedly subjected - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3180 CRL.P No. 100277 of 2022 the complainant to mental and physical cruelty, demanding money from her parental home. 3. The complainant later discovered, through social media, that Accused No.1 had previously worked in London and had already contracted a marriage with a Gujarati woman before marrying her. She subsequently left her matrimonial home in March 2020 and lodged an FIR on 04.01.2021. 4. Service of notice to Respondent No.2 was deemed sufficient, and consequently, she was placed ex parte. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for Respondent No.1 - State. 6. The charge sheet, upon perusal, indicates that except for general and omnibus allegations, there are no specific overt acts detailing how and in what manner each accused subjected the complainant to cruelty—both mentally and physically—or demanded dowry. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others, has observed: Paragraph 17: The Court has expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the tendency to implicate the husband’s relatives in matrimonial disputes without a proper assessment of the allegations. If general and omnibus allegations are left unchecked, it results in an abuse of legal process. Courts must exercise caution before proceeding against the relatives and in- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3180 CRL.P No. 100277 of 2022 laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. Paragraph 18: In cases where general allegations are leveled against multiple accused without any specific role being attributed, the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case. When the accused’s individual role in the alleged offense cannot be ascertained, such allegations do not warrant prosecution. Paragraph 21: Forcing the relatives of the husband to undergo trial based on general and omnibus allegations is unjust. Even if an eventual acquittal is secured, the trial process itself inflicts undue hardship on the accused, which must be discouraged. 8. In the present case, in the absence of specific overt acts, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted solely on the basis of omnibus and general allegations. Permitting the continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the legal process. ORDER i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. ii) The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.2573/2021 pending on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosapete, insofar as it relates to petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4, is hereby quashed. iii) The Trial Court shall proceed as against accused No.1 in accordance with law without being influenced by observations made in this order. Any observation made in this order is only for the purpose of the present petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3180 CRL.P No. 100277 of 2022 Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77