- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:156 CRL.P No. 103156 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103156 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHANTAMMA W/O DURAGAPPA MAILAR, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: SHIVALING NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI-581 110. 2. NAGARAJ S/O DURGAPPA MAILAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHIVALING NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI-581 110. 3. SMT. SHAKUNTALA @ PUSHPA W/O SANNAGUDDAPPA MAYAPPANAVAR, R/O: 1ST CROSS, MARUTI NAGAR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581 115. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRUTHVIRAJ P. HITTALAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH HAVERI WOMAN POLICE STATION, R/BY IT’S STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580 01. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.10 12:40:21 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:156 CRL.P No. 103156 of 2024 2. SMT. KAVITA W/O TIPPESHKUMAR MAILAR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: SHIVALING NAGAR, HAVERI, NOW RESIDNG AT: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581 115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. T. BASAVANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SE. 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.45/2024 DATED 08.07.2024 REGISTERED BY HAVERI WOMEN P.S., FOR OFFENCES SEC 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 HEREIN/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4. 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, challenge the registration of the FIR in Crime No.45/2024 with Haveri Women Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:156 CRL.P No. 103156 of 2024 2. The second respondent lodged the FIR stating that she is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1 and that their marriage was solemnized in 2013. Two children were born out of the wedlock. She resided in the matrimonial home in Haveri, while her husband, accused No.1, worked in Raichur and visited the matrimonial home as and when convenient. Subsequently, when accused No.1 was transferred to Dandeli, the second respondent began residing with him there. During their stay in Dandeli, accused No.1 allegedly harassed her physically and mentally and demanded money from her parental home. 3. Later, the couple shifted back to Haveri. During her stay in Haveri, the second respondent alleged that accused No.1 (her husband), accused No.2 (mother-in-law), accused No.3 (brother-in-law), and accused No.4 (sister-in-law) harassed her physically and mentally and demanded money from her parental home. She alleged that on 24.06.2023, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and has been residing in Byadgi since then. Further, she claimed that on 07.06.2024, when she went to the matrimonial home in Haveri to visit her children, the accused abused her and assaulted her. 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 (informant). 5. As per the averments in the complaint, the second respondent left the matrimonial home on 24.06.2023. Admittedly, accused No.1 had already filed a petition for the dissolution of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:156 CRL.P No. 103156 of 2024 marriage on 30.06.2023. The impugned FIR was lodged on 08.07.2024, more than a year after the second respondent claimed to have left the matrimonial home. 6. While the allegations against accused No.1 are specific in nature, relating to physical and mental harassment and the demand for money, the allegations against the petitioners (accused Nos.2 to 4) are general and omnibus in nature. There are no specific overt acts attributed to accused Nos.2 to 4 to substantiate how and in what manner they allegedly subjected the second respondent to cruelty. 7. In the absence of specific and corroborative allegations against the petitioners, continuing criminal proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162at para No.18 has held as follows: “18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC 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 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.” - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:156 CRL.P No. 103156 of 2024 9. Therefore, accused Nos.2 to 4 cannot be subjected to investigation only on the basis of omnibus and general allegation. Therefore, continuation of investigation against the petitioners/accused herein would be an abuse of process of law. 10. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.0045/2024 registered by the Haveri Women Police Station, Haveri Sub-Division, Haveri, insofar as accused Nos.2 to 4, the petitioners herein, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57