- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13770 CRL.P No. 12889 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12889 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. KRISHNEGOWDA, S/O LATE EREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. 2. KASTURI, D/O LATE EREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. 3. KIRAN N.K, S/O KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. 4. PRUTVI C.N, W/O KIRAN N.K, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 57320. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13770 CRL.P No. 12889 of 2024 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ALDUR P.S., CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 101. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. CHINTANA, W/O KRUSHI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O CHIKKALLA VILLAGE, ALDURU HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1689/2024 REGSITERED BY ALDUR P.S. CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT IN CR.NO.09/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 504, 506, 498(a) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT AS PER ANNEXURE - A AND THE SAME IS PENDING BEFORE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C COURT AT CHIKKAMAGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners, who are facing trial for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, and 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are before this Court seeking relief. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13770 CRL.P No. 12889 of 2024 2. The prosecution alleges that the marriage of the de facto complainant with Accused No.1 was solemnized on 31.05.2019 and that, at the time of the marriage, the complainant’s family gave cash and gold ornaments to the accused as dowry. After the marriage, the de facto complainant went to the matrimonial home in Nagenahalli village. Accused No.1 demanded additional dowry from the complainant’s parental home and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. During the Covid-19 lockdown, Accused No.4 (brother of Accused No.1) and Accused No.5 (wife of Accused No.4) came to the matrimonial home and taunted the de facto complainant for having delivered a girl child on 02.10.2023. All the accused then quarreled and forced the de facto complainant to leave the matrimonial home, assaulting her and demanding that she bring money from her parental home. 3. The de facto complainant, although served with notice, did not appear before the Court in person or through her counsel, and the matter is therefore being heard ex parte. 4. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. 5. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law, Accused No.4 is the brother-in-law, and Accused No.5 is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13770 CRL.P No. 12889 of 2024 the wife of Accused No.4; they are residing separately. Accused No.1 and the de facto complainant were residing in the matrimonial home in Chikkamagaluru. 6. A perusal of the charge sheet material reveals that, apart from omnibus and general allegations, there is no specific overt act detailing how and in what manner each of the accused subjected the de facto complainant to physical and mental cruelty or demanded that she bring money from her parental home. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar at Para No.18, held as follows: “18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has on numerous occasions expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC and the increasing tendency to implicate the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes without analyzing the long-term ramifications of a trial on both the complainant and the accused. It is further evident from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court, by its judgments, has warned the courts against proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.” - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13770 CRL.P No. 12889 of 2024 8. Therefore, in the absence of any specific overt act, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the accused would be an abuse of the process of law, as the Trial Court cannot frame a specific charge solely on the basis of omnibus and general allegations. In such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1689/2024 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Chikkamagaluru, insofar as accused Nos.2 to 5 is hereby quashed. The Trial Court to proceed against accused No.1. (iii) Any observations made in this order, and the observations made if any, is only for the purpose of the present petition. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11