- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:435 CRL.P No. 103005 of 2022 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. 103005 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. FARVEEN W/O. YASEEN BEPARI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: OPP. GOUSIYA NAGORI, RABODI RAI, SANADI CHAL, THANE, MUMBAI-400 001. 2. AMREETA URF ZARA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER, R/O: OPP. GOUSIYA NAGORI, RABODI RAI, SANADI CHAL, THANE, MUMBAI-400 001. 3. JEENAT MOSIN CHOUDHARI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER, R/O: H.NO.24, HIGH STREET, CAMP, BELAGAVI-590 001. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. WAQAR AHMED SHAHPURI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY MAHILA P.S., BELAGAVI, R/BY HIGH COURT GOVT. PLEADER, OFFICE AT DHARWAD HIGH COURT, DHARWAD-580 011. 2. DILBARJAHAN W/O. SARFARAZ CHOUDHARI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER, R/O: H.NO.15, BEEF BUTCHER STREET, CAMP, BELAGAVI-590 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.15 11:09:24 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:435 CRL.P No. 103005 of 2022 INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.3, 4 AND 5 IN C.C. NO.643/2016, PENDING ON THE FILE OF COURT OF JMFC-II, AT BELAGAVI, IMPUGNED COMPLAINT, FIR, AND CHARGE SHEET REGISTERED BY MAHILA POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CRIME NO.54/2016 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498-A, 323, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, 1860. THIS PETITION IS 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. 3 to 5, along with other accused, have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The prosecution’s case is that the marriage of accused No.1 with the de facto complainant was solemnized on 27.04.2009. After the marriage, she resided in the matrimonial home. Accused No.2 (mother-in-law), accused No.3 (sister-in-law), accused No.4 (allegedly in an illicit relationship with accused No.1), and accused No.5 (sister-in-law) are alleged to have subjected the complainant to both physical and mental cruelty. On 07.05.2016, when the complainant was at her parental home, accused No.1 allegedly came there, abused, assaulted, and threatened her and her children with dire consequences. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:435 CRL.P No. 103005 of 2022 3. Respondent No.2 (the de facto complainant) was served with a notice but has neither appeared in person nor through counsel, thus being placed ex parte. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, it is observed that the charge sheet material indicates specific allegations of cruelty, assault, and threats against accused No.1. Accused Nos. 3 to 5, however, are not residing in the matrimonial home and are not directly involved in the alleged incident. Additionally, accused No.4 is only alleged to be in an illicit relationship with accused No.1, which does not fall under the definition of a husband’s relative for the purpose of cruelty under Section 498A IPC. 5. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings against accused Nos. 3 to 5, based on the available material, would not be justified. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam & Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others1, at paragraphs 17, 18 and 21 has held as under: “17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC 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 1 (2022) 6 SCC 599 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:435 CRL.P No. 103005 of 2022 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. 18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, 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 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. 21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, 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. 7. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein, based solely on omnibus and general allegations without any specific overt acts against each of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:435 CRL.P No. 103005 of 2022 accused, as to how and in what manner they subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty mentally and physically, will amount to an abuse of process of law. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. ii) The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.643/2016 pending on the file of the JMFC-II, Belagavi, insofar as it relates to accused Nos.3 to 5, the petitioner herein, is hereby quashed. iii) The Trial Court shall proceed as against other accused in accordance with law without being influenced by observations made in this order. Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 67