- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:288 CRL.P No. 100614 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100614 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VEDA W/O BALAJI AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHER. 2. SRI. BALAJI AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE JOB, BOTH ARE R/O. H.NO.49, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS GOTTIGERE SOUTH AVENUE, BANERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560083. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PSI WOMEN POLICE STATION, HUBLI-DHARWAD, REPTD. BY ADDL.STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SPP OFFICE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011. 2. SMT. CHAITANYA W/O. RAJAN @ NAGRAJAN D/O. LOGANATTHAN MUDALIYAR, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. OPP. SILVER TOWN CROSS DELTA REFRIGERATION GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580030. NOW R/O. ARJUN VISHWR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. CHETAN KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.13 15:17:08 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:288 CRL.P No. 100614 of 2023 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET DATED 14.01.2022 WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC IN WOMEN P.S CRIME NO.07/2022 PENDING CONSIDERATION IN CC NO.3167/2022 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUBBALLI, IN SO FAR AS PRESENT PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.4 AND 5 ARE CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners/accused Nos. 4 and 5, who are facing charges for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’), are before this Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant is the legally wedded wife of accused No. 1. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the complainant’s parents-in-law, accused No. 4 is her sister-in-law, and accused No. 5 is the husband of her sister- in-law. The prosecution alleges that all the accused subjected the complainant to cruelty, both mentally and physically, assaulted her, and threatened her with dire consequences. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The marriage between the de facto complainant and accused No. 1 was solemnized on 06.05.2011, and they were residing in their matrimonial home at Hubli. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:288 CRL.P No. 100614 of 2023 reside in Bengaluru. Except for the general and omnibus allegations that they subjected the complainant to cruelty during their visits to the matrimonial home, there is no specific overt act alleged as to how and in what manner they inflicted cruelty, either mentally or physically. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, observed as follows in paragraphs 17, 18, and 21: “17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has, on numerous occasions, expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increasing tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes without analyzing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further evident from the said judgments that false implication through general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court, through its judgments, has cautioned courts against proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 18. In the present case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.2019, it is revealed that general allegations have been leveled against the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:288 CRL.P No. 100614 of 2023 appellants. The complainant alleged that “all the accused harassed her mentally and threatened to terminate her pregnancy.” Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against any of the appellants herein. None of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This leads to a situation where it becomes impossible to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the alleged offence. The allegations, therefore, are general and omnibus and can, at best, be said to have arisen from minor skirmishes. As for the husband, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of the allegations made against him. However, with respect to the appellants, the general and omnibus allegations made against them do not warrant prosecution. 21. Therefore, upon considering the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust to subject the appellants to the tribulations of a trial. General and omnibus allegations cannot justify a situation where the husband’s relatives are forced to undergo trial. This Court has consistently highlighted that even a criminal trial leading to eventual acquittal - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:288 CRL.P No. 100614 of 2023 leaves severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.” 5. In the absence of specific overt acts alleged against these petitioners, detailing how and in what manner they subjected the complainant to cruelty, both mentally and physically, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted solely on the basis of general and omnibus allegations. Allowing such a prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.3167/2022 pending on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Hubballi, insofar as it relates to the petitioners – accused Nos.4 and 5 stands quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76