- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1582 CRL.P No. 102745 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102745 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. BASAPPA KUMBAR AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD. 2. SRI. PRAVEEN S/O. BASAPPA KUMBAR AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, BOTH ARE R/O. CHIKKUMBI, TQ. SAUNDATTI AND DIST. BELAGAVI-591126. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PSI, SAUNDATTI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011. 2. SMT. SAVITA W/O. PRASHANT KUMBAR AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, RESIDENT OF CHIKKUMBI, TAL. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI, NOW R/O. KADLIKOPPA, TQ. RAMDURG AND DIST. BELAGAVI-591123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SUBHASH J.BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.30 11:52:39 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1582 CRL.P No. 102745 of 2023 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED IN SAUNDATII PS CRIME NO. 278/2022 REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 498A, 504, 506, R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT SAUNDATTI IN C.C.NO.776/2023, IN SO FAR AS PRESENT PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE CONCERNED. 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 petitioners—accused Nos. 2 and 3—are being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 is the husband of the de facto complainant, while accused No.2 is her mother-in-law and accused No.3 is her brother-in-law. It is alleged that the accused subjected the de facto complainant to mental and physical cruelty and demanded money to be brought from her parental home. 3. The marriage between accused No.1 and the de facto complainant was solemnized on 30.04.2021. The respondent No.2 alleged that the accused harassed her, claiming that she did not know how to cook or perform household work. It is further alleged that they abused her in filthy language and demanded that she bring money from her parental home. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1582 CRL.P No. 102745 of 2023 4. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that, apart from general and omnibus allegations, there is no specific or distinct overt act attributed to accused Nos.2 and 3 regarding how and in what manner they subjected the complainant to cruelty. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, observed as follows: Para 17: “The aforementioned 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 relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes without analyzing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further evident from the said judgments that false implication through general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court, through its judgments, has cautioned courts against proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.” Para 18: “In the present case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.2019, it is revealed that general allegations have been leveled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all the accused harassed her mentally and threatened to terminate her pregnancy.’ Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against any of the appellants herein. None of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1582 CRL.P No. 102745 of 2023 against them. This leads to a situation where it becomes impossible to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the alleged offence. The allegations, therefore, are general and omnibus and can, at best, be said to have arisen from minor skirmishes.” Para 21: “Therefore, upon considering the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust to subject the appellants to the tribulations of a trial. General and omnibus allegations cannot justify a situation where the husband’s relatives are forced to undergo trial. This Court has consistently highlighted that even a criminal trial leading to eventual acquittal leaves severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.” 6. In the absence of any specific overt act alleged against the petitioners—detailing how and in what manner they subjected the complainant to mental and physical cruelty—the petitioners cannot be prosecuted based solely on general and omnibus allegations. Allowing such a prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law. ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.776/2023 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Saundatti, insofar as it relates to the petitioners – accused Nos.2 and 3 stands quashed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1582 CRL.P No. 102745 of 2023 iii) The Trial Court is directed to proceed against the accused No.1 in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order, and the observation made, if any, in this order is only for the purpose of this petition. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:vh List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1