- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2480 CRL.P No. 102042 of 2023 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. 102042 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. MOHAMMED MADANI SHAIKH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O. MAQSOOD SHAIKH, # 482 DARUL MADANI, N H.17, OPP. TENGINGUNDI CROSS, BHATKAL, UTTARA KANNADA, KARNATAKA-581320. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. FARHAN BASHA QUAZI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BHATKAL TOWN POLICE STATION, BHATKAL-581320, THROUGH THE STAE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, STATE OF KARNATKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD 580011. 2. SMT. FATHIMA SUHA MOHAMMED MADANI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, AZAD NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, NEAR TUBHA MASJID, BHATKAL, UTTAR KANNADA, KARNATAKA-581320. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. VENKATESH M.KHARVI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST HIM IN C.C.NO. 614/2023 OF BHATKAL TOWN POLICE STATION, BHATKAL PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. COURT BHATKAL FOR OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 498A, 504, 506 OF IPC AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW. Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.13 11:17:46 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2480 CRL.P No. 102042 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, who is facing trial for offenses punishable under Sections 498A, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), has approached this Court seeking relief. 2. The second respondent/complainant lodged an FIR, alleging that her marriage with accused No.1 was solemnized on 07.02.2021, and from the said wedlock, a girl child was born. Initially, accused No.1 and his relatives treated her well, but later, they subjected her to mental and physical cruelty and demanded a sum of ₹8,00,000/- from her parental home. 3. It is further alleged that accused Nos.2 to 7 instigated accused No.1 to seek Talaq from the second respondent. Following such instigation, accused No.1 allegedly pressured her to agree to Talaq. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet only against accused No.1 and dropped the other accused. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. A perusal of the FIR indicates that the allegations against accused Nos.1 to 7 were general and omnibus in nature. However, upon investigation, the police charge-sheeted only accused No.1 and dropped accused Nos.2 to 7. Further, in her - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2480 CRL.P No. 102042 of 2023 statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), the complainant merely reiterated the allegations made in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.. Significantly, she expressed that she had resolved the dispute with the accused and stated that she had not filed the FIR. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kousar @ Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others has held as follows: • Para 17: “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 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.’” • Para 18: “The above-mentioned 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 the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes without analyzing the long-term ramifications of a trial on both the complainant and the accused. False implication through general and omnibus allegations, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court has consistently cautioned against proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband where no prima facie case is made out.” - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2480 CRL.P No. 102042 of 2023 • Para 21: “Although 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 would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.” 7. In light of the above observations, no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner, detailing how or in what manner he abused or assaulted respondent No.2. In the absence of specific allegations, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted solely based on general and omnibus allegations. Consequently, the continuation of the criminal proceedings 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.614/2023 pending on the file of the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court Bhatkal, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR/BKM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84