- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:474 CRL.P No. 101275 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101275 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SUBHASH GURAV S/O. DASARATH GURAV AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED PERSON. 2. SMT. JYOTHI GURAV W/O. SUBHASH GURAV AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE. 3. ARAVINDA GURAV S/O. SUBHASH GURAV AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC. ENGINEER, PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/O. NO.AG, KRISTAL GALENA OFF, SARJAPUR ROAD, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU CITY-560 103. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A.M.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KOPPAL SUB DIVISION, WOMEN PS, KOPPAL, REPRESENTED THROUGH SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD. 2. SMT. NIKHITA W/O. MILINDA GURUVA AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KRISTAL JAID APARTMENT, BELLANDUR NAGAR, BENGALURU, NOW RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS, KALYAN NAGAR, KOPPAL-583231. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. D.V.PATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. C.S.SHETTAR AND SMT. KAVYA C. SHETTAR, ADVOCATES FOR R2) Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.15 11:09:20 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:474 CRL.P No. 101275 of 2023 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 13.02.2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 605/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/USEC. 498(A), 504, 323, R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPAL, REGISTERED IN CRIME NO. 82/2022 AT WOMEN PS KOPPAL, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 2 TO 4 CONCERNED PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D. 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. 2 to 4, who are facing charges under Sections 498A, 504, and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), have filed this petition before the Court. 2. Respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR against the petitioners and accused No. 1 for the aforementioned offences. After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 3. The prosecution’s case is that accused No. 1 is the husband of respondent No. 2 (the complainant), accused Nos. 2 and 3 are her parents-in-law, and accused No. 4 is her brother-in- law. It is alleged that the petitioners subjected the complainant to mental and physical cruelty and threatened her with dire consequences. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this petition. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:474 CRL.P No. 101275 of 2023 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No. 1 (State), and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 5. A perusal of the FIR lodged by respondent No. 2 reveals that her marriage with accused No. 1 was solemnized on 21.11.2021. After marriage, accused No. 1 and respondent No. 2 began residing separately at their matrimonial home in Bengaluru. 6. The allegations against the petitioners are that, on 2.11.2022, they visited the matrimonial home, abused respondent No. 2 in filthy language for not cooking properly, asked her to return to her parental home, and subsequently threw her out of the matrimonial home. 7. However, the FIR was lodged on 8.12.2022, more than a month after the alleged incident, without any plausible explanation for the delay. Additionally, the allegations in the FIR pertain to only one incident of alleged mental and physical cruelty by the petitioners, with no further instances cited. 8. The single incident as described in the FIR does not establish the essential elements required to constitute an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, which involves continuous or systematic cruelty to a woman by her husband or relatives. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:474 CRL.P No. 101275 of 2023 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kousar @ Sonam & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others1 at paragraphs 17, 18 & 21 has held as under: “17. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana , it was also observed that:- “6. 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.” 18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A 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 proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.” 10. In view of the above, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners based solely on general and omnibus allegations would constitute an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 1 (2022) 1 SCR 558 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:474 CRL.P No. 101275 of 2023 11. The impugned proceedings in CC No. 605/2023, pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal, insofar as they relate to the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 4, are hereby quashed. 12. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the case against accused No. 1 in accordance with the law, without being influenced by any observations made herein. 13. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75