- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12314 CRL.P No. 9468 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9468 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR.A, S/O. ANANDRAJ.P, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 2. SMT. MEENAKSHMAMMA N, W/O. ANANDRAJ P, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 3. SRI. ANANDRAJ P, S/O LATE PHILIPS, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.11, CLUB ROAD, ANANDPURA, T.C.PALYA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 036. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V. ANAND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K.R. PURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 036, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING. Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12314 CRL.P No. 9468 of 2022 2. SMT. SOWMYA A.M, W/O NAVEEN KUMAR.A, D/O.MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO. 117/A, BUDIHAL, NITTUR POST, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DIST - 577 530. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 03.04.2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 323, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC IN CR.NO.101/2022 DATED 03.04.2022 REGISTERED BY K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF X ADDL.C.M.M,. MAYO HALL, BENGALURU AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE FIR DATED 03.04.2022 IN ANNEXURE-C AND C.C.NO.54701/2022 AND THEREBY ALLOW THE PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioners, namely the husband and parents in law of respondent No.2, have preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, seeking to quash the FIR registered against them in Crime No.101/2022 at K.R.Puram Police - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12314 CRL.P No. 9468 of 2022 Station for offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. Police have completed investigation and filed charge sheet for the said offences. 2. It is the case of prosecution that marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner No.1/accused No.1 was solemnized on 14.08.2020 and after the marriage they were residing in the house of accused No.1 situated at K.R.Pura, Bengaluru. Both of them were working in Software Companies. It is alleged that, accused No.1 used to take the entire salary of respondent No.2 and only for few days she was looked after properly in her matrimonial home and thereafter, all the accused started subjecting her to mental cruelty demanding her salary. Even when she was 7 months pregnant, they subjected her to mental torture. On 19.01.2022, she gave birth to a female child. However, when she called to inform the birth of a baby, accused did not receive the phone call. On 03.04.2022 at about 11.30 a.m., respondent No.2 along with her parents and brother, namely CW's-4, 5 and 7 went near the house - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12314 CRL.P No. 9468 of 2022 of the accused, at that time they were abused and assaulted etc. 3. The undisputed facts are that the marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner No.1 took place on 14.08.2020 and after the marriage, she was living along with her husband separately. Both of them being software engineers, were working. It is not disputed that petitioner Nos.2 and 3, parents of petitioner No.1 were not residing with the couple. On the other hand, they were residing separately. 4. A perusal of the complaint averments shows that, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 namely the parents in law of respondent No.2 used to visit their house. The specific allegation of subjecting the complainant to cruelty is attributed against her husband. Omnibus allegations are made that even his parents were demanding money for purchasing a own house in Bengaluru. 5. It is alleged that on 03.04.2022 at about 11.30 a.m., the complainant along with her parents and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12314 CRL.P No. 9468 of 2022 brother went to the house of accused as they were not responding to the phone call after she gave birth to a child, at that time the accused abused them and assaulted her brother and father. 6. As already noted, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were residing separately and they were not residing with petitioner No.1. Vague allegation made in the complaint against the parents of accused No.1 is not sufficient to hold that there is a prima facie case against them. In the absence of specific and distinct allegations against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and the allegations being general and omnibus in nature, the proceedings initiated against the said petitioners cannot be allowed to continue. 7. In K.Subba Rao v. State of Telangana reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452, it is held that: "The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out". - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12314 CRL.P No. 9468 of 2022 8. In Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2022 (6) SCC 599, the Apex Court at paragraph 17 has observed as under: "The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceedings against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them." 9. Having perused the entire material on record, I am of the view that the criminal proceeding initiated against petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are aged about 65 and 70 years respectively, is an abuse process of the Court. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Petition is partly-allowed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12314 CRL.P No. 9468 of 2022 ii. The proceedings arising out of Crime No.101/2022 of K.R.Puram Police Station pending in CC.No.54701/2022 on the file of Court of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall Unit, at Bengaluru is quashed against petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3. iii. The proceedings shall continue against petitioner No.1/accused No.1 in accordance with law. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 CT: BHK