- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3057 CRL.P No. 103402 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103402 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. RUDRAPPAYYA S/O KARIYAPPAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: LINGADAHALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581 119. 2. DRAKSHAYANI W/O RUDRAPPAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 58 EYARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: LINGADAHALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581 119. 3. SHAMBHULINGAYYA S/O RUDRAPPAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: LINGADAHALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581 119. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GOURISHANKAR H. MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, WOMEN POLICE STATION, HUBLI, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD. 2. SMT. SINCHANA W/O SHIVALINGAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, RES AT: HOUSE NO.3520, B/33, LINGRAJ NAGAR, TQ: HUBBALLI-580 031. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. S.N. HOSAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.19 13:15:50 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3057 CRL.P No. 103402 of 2022 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDING AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4/PETITIONERS AS ATTACHED IN WOMEN POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI CR.NO.25/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE 3RD ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, AT: HUBBALLI IN CC NO.10133/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A), 307, 323, R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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. 2 to 4—who have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307, and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), have approached this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that the de facto complainant is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1, their marriage having been solemnized on 14.02.2013. It is alleged that accused No.1 failed to take care of the first informant and their children with love and affection and frequently demanded that his wife bring money from her parental home. He allegedly subjected the complainant to both mental and physical cruelty, attempted to strangle her by pressing her neck, and assaulted her, causing simple injuries. The complainant had also lodged a complaint with the Halageri Police Station a year prior to the present case. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3057 CRL.P No. 103402 of 2022 3. Accused No.2 is the father-in-law, accused No.3 is the mother-in-law, and accused No.4 is the brother-in-law. It is alleged that they instigated accused No.1 to harass his wife. On 17.03.2021, at around midnight, while the complainant was at her maternal home, accused No.1 allegedly arrived, picked a quarrel, abused her, and strangulated her, causing injuries. 4. 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. 5. A perusal of the charge sheet materials indicates that there is no specific overt act of abuse or assault attributed to accused No.1. Furthermore, apart from general and omnibus allegations that the petitioners—accused Nos. 2 to 4—instigated accused No.1 to harass the complainant, there is no specific overt act detailing how and in what manner each of the accused instigated accused No.1 or abused or assaulted the complainant. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Kahkashan Kousar @ Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others, at paragraphs 17, 18, and 21, has held as follows: “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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3057 CRL.P No. 103402 of 2022 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, on numerous occasions, expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increasing tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long-term ramifications of a trial on both the complainant and the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication through general omnibus allegations made in the course of a matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked, would result in the misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court, through its judgments, has cautioned against prosecuting the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 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.” 7. In the absence of any specific overt act against the petitioners detailing how and in what manner they subjected the complainant to mental and physical cruelty, they cannot be prosecuted solely based on general and omnibus allegations. Allowing such a prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.10133/2021, pending before the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hubballi, insofar as they relate to the petitioners—accused Nos. 2 to 4—are hereby - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3057 CRL.P No. 103402 of 2022 quashed. The Trial Court shall proceed against accused No.1 in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order, as the observations, if any, are made solely for the purpose of this petition. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72