- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:572 CRL.P No. 101525 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101525 OF 2019 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. DR. ARUN S/O. BANDOPANTH CHILLAL AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O: CHIRANTAN S.NO.12/5/2/2, VADAGAON, BUDRUKA, SUN CITY ROAD, PUNE-411051. 2. DR. SMT. UMA W/O. ARUN CHILLAL AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR AND HOUSEHOLD, R/O: CHIRANTAN S.NO.12/5/2/2, VADAGAON, BUDRUKA, SUN CITY ROAD, PUNE-411051. 3. DR. SIDHANT S/O. ARUN CHILLAL AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O: CHIRANTAN S.NO.12/5/2/2, VADAGAON, BUDRUKA, SUN CITY ROAD, PUNE-411051. 4. PRAKASH S/O. SHIVAJI TAKKAR AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: C/O DR.ARUN BANDOPANTH CHILLAL, CHIRANTAN S.NO.12/5/2/2, VADAGAON, BUDRUKA, SUN CITY ROAD, PUNE-411051. 5. SMT. VRUSHALI SARODE AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: C/O. DR.ARUN BANDOPANTH CHILLAL, CHIRANTAN S.NO.12/5/2/2, VADAGAON, BUDRUKA, SUN CITY ROAD, PUNE-411051. 6. GIRISH DIVATE AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: DIVATI GALLI, HALE HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580024. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.21 09:48:52 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:572 CRL.P No. 101525 of 2019 AND: SMT. DR. SANGEETHA @ VIDYA W/O. NIKHIL CHILLAL AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: C/O SHIVANAND BENNUR, VIKAS NAGAR, MALATESHWAR NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, BEHIND RAIBOW SCHOOL, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.A. HUDDAR AND SRI. M.S.HARAVI, ADVOCATES) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.440/2019 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 324, 504, 307, 420 AND 498-A OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR, INSOFAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED ACCUSED NO.2 TO 7, AND ALLOW THE PETITION WITH COST 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 cognizance taken for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 307, 420, and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) is impugned in this petition by accused Nos.2 to 7. 2. The respondent filed a private complaint alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are her parents-in-law, accused No.4 is the younger son of accused Nos.2 and 3, and accused Nos.5 to 7 are the relatives of accused No.1. It is alleged that all the accused subjected her to mental and physical cruelty and demanded money to be brought from her parental home. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:572 CRL.P No. 101525 of 2019 3. On 03.11.2016, the accused forcibly took the complainant in a car to her parental home and demanded additional dowry of Rs.25,00,000/-. The accused allegedly stated that until the money was paid, the complainant would not be allowed to return to the matrimonial home. The complainant further alleged that accused No.1, at the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 4, filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Thereafter, the complainant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights in M.C. No.10/2017. It is further alleged that on 17.03.2017, when accused No.1 came to Ranebennur to attend the case, he abused and assaulted the complainant. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences, leading to the filing of this petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, except for vague and general allegations, there are no specific accusations as to how and in what manner the petitioners (accused Nos.2 to 7) subjected the complainant to mental and physical cruelty or demanded money from her parental home. It was further submitted that the alleged demand for money took place on 03.11.2016, and the complaint was filed only after accused No.1 had filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. Additionally, the complainant had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:572 CRL.P No. 101525 of 2019 5. It was argued that the allegations arise out of a marital dispute between accused No.1 and the complainant but have been given a criminal angle to harass the petitioners. 6. In response, learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complaint specifically discloses overt acts committed by each of the accused, detailing how and in what manner they subjected the complainant to cruelty. It was further argued that since the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the veracity of the allegations can only be examined during the trial and not at this stage. Thus, the counsel sought the dismissal of the petition. 7. The arguments of the learned counsel for both parties have been duly considered. 8. The marriage between the complainant and accused No.1 was solemnized on 29.01.2016. The complaint alleges that after the marriage, the accused subjected her to cruelty. However, there are no specific overt acts attributed to accused Nos.2 to 4, apart from the general allegation that they demanded dowry on 03.11.2016. The complaint also alleges that on the said date, accused Nos.2 to 4 took the complainant to her parental home, demanding Rs.25,00,000/- as dowry, and allowed her to return to the matrimonial home only after the said amount was paid. 9. Subsequently, on 19.12.2016, accused No.1 filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. After receiving summons in relation to those proceedings, the complainant filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 01.02.2017. It is further alleged that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:572 CRL.P No. 101525 of 2019 when accused No.1 appeared in the said proceedings on 17.03.2017 at Ranebennur, he abused and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. 10. The last alleged incident involving accused Nos.2 to 7 took place on 03.11.2016, yet the complaint was filed only on 02.02.2018, without offering any plausible explanation for the delay. Moreover, the complaint was filed after accused No.1 had initiated divorce proceedings. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 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. 1 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:572 CRL.P No. 101525 of 2019 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.” 12. Therefore, when the complaint discloses only vague and general allegations, without specifying any overt act detailing how and in what manner the accused subjected the complainant to mental and physical cruelty, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the aforesaid offences is impermissible and amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 13. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition stands allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.440/2019 pending on the file of the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur insofar as it relates to the accused Nos.2 to 7, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC, BKM CT:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36