- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2516 CRL.P No. 102907 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102907 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. ASHOK S/O. MARUTI NAIK AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. RTD. HEAD MASTER, R/O. DHUPADAL, TQ. GOKAK. 2. VIJAYA W/O. ASHOK NAIK AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. DHUPADAL, TQ. GOKAK. 3. RAVINDRA S/O. ASHOK NAIK AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, NOW AT R/O. NO. 9, SECTOR B, BEML LAYOUT, IDOL HOMES, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-98, R/O. DHUPADAL, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE AND SRI. A.M.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD, THROUGH GHATAPRABHA POLICE STATION. 2. PADMA W/O. AJAY NAIK AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, C/O. MALLAPPA YAMANAPPA SANADI, NO. 181/1+2, SHRIRAM NAGAR, 11TH CROSS, GOKAK-591307, ADDRESS FOR SERVICE: NEXRU LIVELIHOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, NO. 201, 2ND FLOOR, SHANKARA NAGAR, Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.13 11:17:50 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2516 CRL.P No. 102907 of 2022 MAIN ROAD, ABOVE SBI BENGALURU, ALSO R/O. DHUPADAL, TQ. GOKAK, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ASHOK T KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1) (SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENITRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4, IN GHATAPRABHA P.S. CR.NO. 160/2022 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC. 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC U/SEC. 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, GOKAK. 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 present petition is filed challenging the registration of the First Information Report (“FIR”) for the offenses punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Respondent No.2, the de facto complainant, lodged an FIR stating that she is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are her parents-in-law, and accused No.4 is her brother-in-law. The marriage between respondent No.2 and accused No.1 was solemnized on 01.05.2012, and they have one female child from the wedlock. The allegations in the FIR state that the accused subjected respondent No.2 to physical and mental cruelty, demanded dowry, and insisted that she bring money from - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2516 CRL.P No. 102907 of 2022 her parental home. It is further alleged that the accused tortured her on the ground that she did not give birth to a male child. On 23.06.2022, accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly abused and threatened respondent No.2, demanding that she either leave the matrimonial home along with her daughter or bring money from her parental house. It is further alleged that when her sister came to her rescue, all the accused assaulted her with their hands. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that accused No.1 and respondent No.2 were residing in the matrimonial home at Bengaluru, as evidenced by the identity card issued by RBL Bank, Bengaluru, where respondent No.2 was employed, along with other supporting documents annexed to the petition. It is further contended that the allegations made against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature, without any specific overt act detailing how and in what manner they subjected respondent No.2 to cruelty or demanded dowry. 4. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the FIR discloses a prima facie case against the petitioners. He contends that the veracity of the allegations requires investigation and that the present petition does not warrant interference at this stage. He further relies on a rental agreement to argue that accused Nos.1 and 2, along with respondent No.2, were residing together in the matrimonial home at Bengaluru. 5. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the following is noted: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2516 CRL.P No. 102907 of 2022 6. The marriage between accused No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized in Gokak in 2012, following which they resided in their matrimonial home in Bengaluru. The rental agreement produced by respondent No.2 establishes that accused Nos.1 and 2, along with respondent No.2, were residing together in Bengaluru. However, a perusal of the FIR reveals that the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature, lacking any specific details regarding the alleged acts of cruelty or dowry demands by each of the petitioners. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Others, has held as follows: “Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, it was observed that: ‘The Courts should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in matrimonial disputes and dowry cases. The relatives of the husband should not be implicated based on omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.’” “This Court has, on multiple 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 both the complainant and the accused. General and omnibus allegations, if left unchecked, would amount to a misuse of the legal process. Courts must exercise caution before proceeding against the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2516 CRL.P No. 102907 of 2022 relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.” “In the present case, upon perusal of the FIR, it is evident that general allegations have been made against all the accused. The complainant has alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened to terminate her pregnancy.’ However, no specific and distinct allegations have been attributed to any of the appellants. Such general and omnibus allegations do not warrant prosecution.” 8. The rental agreement produced by respondent No.2 establishes that she was residing separately in Bengaluru. Although she resided in Bengaluru along with accused No.1, there is no mention in the complaint that she was residing separately from accused Nos.2 and 3. On the contrary, it is alleged that she was also residing at Gokak with accused Nos.2 and 3, which amounts to material suppression of facts. On this ground alone, the FIR requires to be quashed. 9. In light of the above, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No.160/2022, registered at Ghataprabha Police Station, insofar as it relates to petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4, is hereby quashed. 10. The Investigating Officer is directed to proceed against accused No.1 in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. It is clarified that the observations - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2516 CRL.P No. 102907 of 2022 made herein are solely for the purpose of adjudicating this petition and shall not be treated as findings on the merits of the case. 11. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR CT:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 99