- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:192 CRL.P No. 102174 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102174 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. NAGARAJ SURESH SABOJI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, 2. SHRI. SURESH CHANNAPPA SABOJI, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: WEAVER, 3. SMT. DRAKSHAYANI SURESH SABOJI, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: MUTTUR GALLI, RABAKAVI, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 311. 4. SMT. VEENA BASAVARAJ BADE, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: NIPPANI, NOW AT MUTTUR GALLI, RABAKAVI, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 311. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (BY TERADAL P.S.), R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580 011. 2. SMT. MAITRA NAGARAJ SABOJI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: NEAR MAHALAKSHMI TEMPLE, VIDYANAGAR, RABAKAVI, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.21 07:28:42 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:192 CRL.P No. 102174 of 2022 DIST: BAGALKOT-587 311. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC., PRAYING TO QUASH COMPLAINT DATED 25.04.2022 & F.I.R. DATED 25.04.2022 BY BANAHATTI CIRCLE TERDAL POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.35/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 323, 324, 498-A, 504, 506, R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI, INSOFAR AS THESE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 (ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4), TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The registration of the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is challenged in this petition. 2. Respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR alleging that her marriage with accused No. 1 was solemnized 14 years ago, and from the said wedlock, three children were born. Accused No. 1 is her husband, accused Nos. 2 and 3 are her parents-in-law, and accused No. 4 is her sister-in-law. She alleged that all the accused subjected her to both physical and mental cruelty, assaulted her, abused her, and threatened her with dire consequences. Accused No. 1 allegedly provided a separate matrimonial home where the complainant, her husband, and children resided. However, later, accused No. 1 started quarreling with her without - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:192 CRL.P No. 102174 of 2022 any reason, and accused Nos. 2 to 4 also subjected her to cruelty. It was further alleged that accused Nos. 2 to 4 took custody of her children. On 23.04.2022, when she went to visit her children, who were in the custody of her parents-in-law, they abused her in filthy language and assaulted her on the head. 3. 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/defacto complainant. 4. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the marriage between accused No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized 14 years ago, and three children were born from the said wedlock. The allegations against the accused are omnibus and general in nature. There are no specific overt acts attributed to each accused indicating how and in what manner they subjected the complainant to physical and mental cruelty or assaulted her. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others1, has ruled as follows: “19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the 1 (2022) 6 SCC 599 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:192 CRL.P No. 102174 of 2022 Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution. 22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.” 6. Therefore, continuation of investigation only on the basis of omnibus and general allegations will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No.35/2022, registered by Terdal Police Station, is hereby quashed. JTR CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 73 Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE