- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8755 CRL.P No. 9952 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9952 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHANTHI M W./O SRI. B SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O NO.10/6, 6TH CROSS, VITTAL NAGARA, CHAMARAJA PETE, BENGALURU - 560 026. 2. SRI. SRINIVAS S/O BALAYYA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O NO.10/6, 6TH CROSS, VITTAL NAGARA, CHAMARAJA PETE, BENGALURU - 560 026. 3. SRI. KAMAL RAJU S/O SRI. B. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB, R/O NO.10/6, 6TH CROSS, VITTAL NAGARA, CHAMARAJA PETE, BENGALURU - 560 026. Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8755 CRL.P No. 9952 of 2025 4. SMT. ASHA W/O SRI. KAML RAJU S, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O NO.10/6,6TH CROSS, VITTAL NAGARA, CHAMARAJA PETE, BENGALURU - 560 026. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DINESH M. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAWANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION, THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. MRS. SANGEETHA S D/O LATE SUBRAMANIAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.382/1, IST MAIN, PANCHASHEELANAGARA, PATTEGARAPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 072. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. V. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8755 CRL.P No. 9952 of 2025 CC.NO.23847/2024, PENDING BEFORE THE XXIV ACMM, BENGALURU INCLUDING THE FIR IN CR.NO.302/2023 DTD 12.12.2023 AND COMPLAINT DTD 12.12.2023 AND THE CHARGE SHEET NO.302/2023 DTD 28.06.2023 FILED BY WOMEN POLICE SOUTH DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A), 504, 506, 34 OF IPC, 1860, U/S 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT, 1961, REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NOs.2 TO 5) AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO PRODUCED AS DOCUMENT NO.1, 2, 3, 4 RESPECTIVELY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.23847/2024 registered for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8755 CRL.P No. 9952 of 2025 2. Heard Sri. Dinesh M. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. V. Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. The petitioners are one is Mother-in-law, Father-in-law, Brother-in- law and Brother-in-law's wife. The husband/accused No.1 and respondent No.2/complainant get married on 14.09.2020. Relationship between the two appears to have turned sour, thereafter. The turning of sour of the relationship leads to accused No.1 and the complainant to register several crimes against each other. One such complaint is registered by the complainant on 12.12.2023, which becomes a crime in crime No.302/2023. The Police conduct investigation on the said crime and file a charge sheet against these petitioners. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. This Court had interdicted further proceedings against the petitioners. The interim order subsists - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8755 CRL.P No. 9952 of 2025 even today. The husband/accused No.1 is not before the Court. Therefore, trial against the husband is on. 4. Sri. Dinesh M. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that there is no allegation that would pin at the ingredients of the offence under Section 498A of the IPC or any other offence that is alleged against these petitioners. All the allegations are omnibus. There is no overtact alleged for the purpose of demand of dowry. There is no demand of dowry in fact in the case at hand, is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. All the allegation of the wife is that the husband used to hand over the entire salary not to her, but to his mother. That is the entire issue in the case at hand is his submission. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant would seek to refute the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in contending that the Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. The mother-in-law and the father-in-law and all the accused used to stay in a joint family. Therefore, the allegations are met in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8755 CRL.P No. 9952 of 2025 case at hand and it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts and relationship between the parties to the lis are not in dispute. The marriage between accused No.1 and respondent No.2/complainant is a matter of fact. The relationship getting floundered between them is again a matter of fact. A complaint comes to be registered by the respondent No.2/complainant before the jurisdictional Police alleging the afore-quoted offences. Since the entire issue is now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint: "ಮಾ ೕೕ ಾೆ, ಬಸವನಗು, ೆಂಗಳರು. ಇಂದ: ೕಮ ಸಂೕತ ಎ . ನO.382/2 1st ªÉÄÃuï, ಪಂಚೕ%ಾನಗರ, ಪ&ೆ'(ಾರ)ಾಳ*, ೆಂಗಳರು - 560 072. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8755 CRL.P No. 9952 of 2025 Mob No. 7676256499 +ಷಯ: ನನ. ಗಂಡ ೕ 01ೆ2ೕ3 S. & ಆತನ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರ 8ೕ%ೆ ದೂರು :ಾಖಸುವ ಬ(ೆ<. M: 9611434000 (01ೆ2ೕ3) M: 9611483424 (±ÁAw) M: 9008557706 (PÀªÀįï gÁeï) M: 6360605474 (²æäªÁ¸ï) =ಾನ*>ೇ, ಈ @ೆಳ(ೆ ಸ =ಾರುವ ನನ.ನು. 8ೕ%ೆ AೇBದ 01ೆ2ೕ3 ಎಂಬುವವರ CೊDೆ 1ಾEೊFೕಕGಾ HIಾಂಕ: 14/09/2020 ರಂದು ೆಂಗಳJನ Kಾಮ>ಾಜ)ೇ&ೆಯMರುವ "ೕ >ಾಘGೇಂದ )ಾOP AಾQ'ನM ಂದೂ ಸಂಪ:ಾಯದಂDೆ ಮದುGೆ =ಾ@ೊO'ರುDಾF>ೆ. ಅಲM:ೇ ಮದುGೆ ಸಂದಭPದM ಹುಡುಗV(ೆ ವರದWೆ(ಾ @ೈ KೈY, ಕFನ ಸರ & ಉಂಗುರ ಒಟು' 50 (ಾಂ \ನ. Aಾಗೂ ನಮ] ಮIೆಯM ಗಂಡು ಮಕ^BಲMದ @ಾರಣ ನಮ] Dಾ`ಯವರು ಮದುGೆ =ಾಡಲು Eಾಧ*+ಲMದbJಂದ ಕ%ಾ*ಣ ಮಂಟಪ, ಹೂ+ನ ಖಚುP, ಅ(ೆ ಖ\P(ೋಸ^ರ ರೂ.3,00,000 ಹನವನು. ಪcೆದು@ೊಂರುDಾF>ೆ. ಅಲM:ೇ ಮದುGೆಯ ಸಂಧಭPದM Iಾನು B.Com. ಪದ+ೕಧರIೆಂದು AೇBದುb, ಆತ dಾವe:ೇ ಪದ+ಯನು. ಆ ಸಂದಭPದM AೊಂHರ:ೇ ಸುಳfg AೇBರುDಾFIೆ. ಅಲM:ೇ ಮದುGೆ ಆದ ನಂತರ Iಾನು ನನ. ಗಂಡನ ಮIೆಯM GಾಸGಾದುb ಆ ಸಮಯದM ನನ. ಅDೆF ೕಮ 1ಾಂ ಮತುF ನನ. =ಾವ ೕ ೕVGಾ ಮತುF ಇವರ Jಯ ಮಗ ೕ ಕಮQ>ಾh & ಆತನ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಒO'(ೆ ಸಂEಾರ ನcೆಸುF:ೆbನು. (ಅDೆF ಮತುF iಾವ, ಅಕ^ನ Aೆಂಡ) ನನ. ಗಂಡನ ಮುjಾಂತರ ಇಲM ಸಲMದ +ಷಯಗB(ೆ ಜಗಳ Dೆ(ೆದು ನನ. 8ೕ%ೆ ಹ%ೆM =ಾಸುFದbರು. ಇದರ CೊDೆ(ೆ ಮತFಷು' ಹಣ Vೕಡೇ@ೆಂದು ಒDಾF`ಸುFದbರು. ಆ ಸಮಯದM Iಾನು @ೆಲಸ@ೆ^ AೋಗುFದುb ನನ. ಎ%ಾM ಸಂಬಳವನು. ನನ. ಗಂಡ & ಅDೆFಯವJ(ೆ VೕಡುFದುb ನನ. Dಾ`(ೆ ಈ +Kಾರವನು. AೇಳfFರಲM. ನಂತರ HIಾಂಕ 31.08.2023ರಂದು ನನ. ಗಂಡ ನನ.ನು. ಬಲವಂತGಾ dಾವe:ೇ +Kಾರವನು. Aೇಳ:ೇ ನನ. Dಾ` ಮIೆ(ೆ kಟು' Aೋದುb, Vೕನು, Iಾನು & ನನ. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8755 CRL.P No. 9952 of 2025 ಕುಟುಂಬವರು AೇBದ 1½ ಲl ವರದWೆ Dೆ(ೆದು@ೊಂಡು ಬರುವe:ಾದ>ೆ ನಮ] ಮIೆ(ೆ ಾ ಇಲMGಾದ>ೆ ನಮ] ಮIೆ(ೆ ಬರೇಡ ಎಂದು ಅGಾಚ* ಶಬbಗBಂದ ೈಯುb kಟು' AೋರುDಾF>ೆ. ನಂತರ Iಾನು ಎ%ಾM +Kಾರಗಳನು. ನನ. Dಾ` & ನನ. Eೋದರ =ಾವನವ>ಾದ ೕ Iಾ>ಾಯnರವJ(ೆ Bo:ೆbನು. ನಂತರ ನನ. Dಾ` & ನಮ] ಸಂಬಂpಕರು ಅವರ ಮIೆ(ೆ Aೋ ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರನು. iೇO=ಾ ನನ. ಮಗಳನು. ಕ>ೆದು@ೊಂಡು Aೋ ಎಂದು ಹಲGಾರು ಾJ @ೇB@ೊಂಡರೂ ಸಹ ಅವರು ನಮ] Dಾ` & ನನ. ಕುಟುಂಬದವರನು. ಾ`(ೆ ಬಂದಂDೆ ೈದು ಅವರ ಮIೆ(ೆ ಪGೇಸಲು ಅವ@ಾಶ Vೕಡ:ೇ ಕಳfoರುDಾF>ೆ. ಅಲM:ೇ HIಾಂಕ 29/10/2023 Eಾಯಂ@ಾಲ 5 ಗಂ&ೆಯ ಸಮಯದM Iಾನು, ನನ. Dಾ` Aಾಗೂ ನನ. Eೋದರ =ಾವನವ>ಾದ ೕ Iಾ>ಾಯnರವರು ನನ. ಗಂಡನ ಮIೆಯ ಹFರ Aೋ ನನ.ನು. ಮIೆ(ೆ EೇJo@ೊಂಡು ನನ. ಗಂಡನ CೊDೆ ಸಂEಾರ ನcೆಸಲು ಅವ@ಾಶ Vೕ ಎಂದು @ೇBದb@ೆ^ ನನ. ಗಂಡ, ಅDೆF & =ಾವ ನನ. iಾವ ಮತುF ಆತನ Aೆಂಡ ಆ1ಾ ಎಲMರೂ EೇJ ನನ.ನು. ಮIೆ(ೆ Aೋಗಲು kಡ:ೇ ಾ`(ೆ ಬಂದಂDೆ 'ಅGಾಚ*' ಶಬbಗBಂದ ೈಯುb )ಾಣೆದJ@ೆ Aಾ0 Iಾವe AೇBದಷು' ವರದWೆ Dೆ(ೆದು@ೊಂಡು ಾ ಎಂದು ಕಳfoರುDಾF>ೆ. ಆದbJಂದ Dಾವeಗಳf ಅವರುಗಳ 8ೕ%ೆ @ಾನೂನು Jೕಯ ಕಮ Dೆ(ೆದು@ೊಂಡು ನನ(ೆ Iಾ*ಯ ಒದಸೇ@ೆಂದು ತಮ]M +ನಂo@ೊಳfgDೆFೕIೆ." The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtained in column No.17 reads as follows: "17.@ೇoನ ಸಂWಪF Eಾ>ಾಂಶ ಈ :ೋsಾ>ೋಪಣ ಪO'ಯ @ಾಲಂ ನಂ-14 ರM.,ನ EಾW-1 ರವರು @ಾಲಂ ನಂ- 12 ರM ನಮೂHoರುವ ಎ1 ಆ>ೋtಯನು. ¢£ÁAPÀ:14/09/2020 ರಂದು ಮದುGೆdಾದುb, ಎ2, ಎ3 ಆ>ೋtಗಳ ೇ@ೆಯಂDೆ ಮದುGೆಯ ಸಮಯದM EಾW-2 ರವರು ಎ1 ಆ>ೋt(ೆ ಸು=ಾರು 50 (ಾಂ \ನ. ಭರಣಗಳನು. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8755 CRL.P No. 9952 of 2025 ವರದWೆdಾ Vೕ, ಮದುGೆ ಖಚPನು. ಭJoರುDಾF>ೆ. ಮದುGೆಯ ನಂತರ EಾW- 1 ರವರು ಎ1 Jಂದ ಎ5 ಆ>ೋtಗಳ CೊDೆಯ, ೆಂಗಳJನ Kಾಮ>ಾಜ)ೇ&ೆ, +ಠQ ನಗರದ 6Iೇ @ಾ ನMರುವ ಮIೆ ನಂ-10/6 ರM GಾಸGಾರುGಾ(ೆ, ಎ%ಾ ಆ>ೋtಗಳf EೇJ@ೊಂಡು EಾW-1 ರವರ ಬB ಸಣv ಪeಟ' +KಾರಗಳಲೂM, Dಾಗ:ೇ Dೆ(ೆದು ಜಗಳ =ಾದbಲM.:ೇ. ತವರು ಮIೆ`ಂದ Aೆ\wನ ವರದWೆdಾ ಹಣವನು. ಪcೆದು@ೊಂಡು ಾ ಎಂದು ಪVತ* ಂEೆ VೕದbJಂದ EಾW-2 ರವರು 1 ಲl ಹಣವನು. EಾW-3 ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಎ1 ಆ>ೋtಯ ಾ*ಂx jಾDೆ(ೆ Aಾ0oರುDಾF>ೆ ಮತುF ಎ5 ಆ>ೋtಯ ಕುಮ]0^Vಂದ ಎ1 Jಂದ ಎ4 ವ>ೆನ ಆ>ೋtಗಳf EಾW-1 ರವರು @ೆಲಸ@ೆ^ Aೋ ಬಂ:ಾಗ +1ಾಂ Vೕಡ:ೇ ಮIೆ @ೆಲಸ =ಾಸುವeದು ತಡGಾ ಬಂದ>ೆ ಅನು=ಾನ ಪಡುವeದು =ಾ ಂEೆ VೕರುDಾF>ೆ Aಾಗೂ ಎ1. ಎ2 ಆ>ೋtಗಳf ಒDಾಯ ಪyವPಕGಾ ಪ ಂಗಳf EಾW-1 ರವರ ಸಂಬಳದ iಾಗತ ಹಣವನು. ಪcೆದು@ೊಂರುDಾF>ೆ. EಾW-1 ರವರು EಾW-3 ರವರ ಮದುGೆ ಖ\P(ೆ ಹಣ Vೕಡುವ +ಷಯದ. ಎ%ಾM. ಆ>ೋtಗಳf ಆzೇಪವನು. ವ*ಕFಪo, ಜಗಳ =ಾ EಾW-1 ರವರನು. @ೆಲಸHಂದ koರುDಾF>ೆ EಾW-1 ರವರು ಮದುGೆdಾ 2 ವಷPಗಾದರೂ ಮಕ^ಾಲMGೆಂಬ @ಾರಣ@ೆ^ ಎ%ಾ, ಆ>ೋtಗಳf EಾW-1 ರವJ(ೆ ಬಂCೆ, ದJದದವಳf ಎಂದು VಂHo =ಾನoಕGಾ Iೋವನು.ಂಟು =ಾದbಲM:ೇ ಈ +KಾರGಾ EಾW-1, ಎ1 ಆ>ೋt ಪcೆದು@ೊಂಡ \0Dಾ{ Gೆಚw ಒಂದೂವ>ೆ ಲlರೂಗಳನು. Vನ. ತವರು ಮIೆ`ಂದ ಪcೆದು@ೊಂಡು ಾ ಎಂದು ಎ2 Jಂದ ಎ4 ವ>ೆನ ಆ>ೋtಗಳf EಾW- 1 ರವJ(ೆ ಒDಾFಯಪoದುb, ಎ-2 Jಂದ ಎ4 ಆ>ೋtಗಳ ೇ@ೆಯನು ಈcೇJಸದ AೊರDಾ ಮIೆ(ೆ ಬರೇಡGೆಂದು ಎ1 ಆ>ೋtಯು EಾW-1 ರವರನು. ತವರು ಮIೆ(ೆ kಟು' ಬಂHದbJಂದ EಾW-2, EಾW-1 ರವರು HIಾಂಕ: HIಾಂಕ:29/10/2023 ರಂದು ಆ>ೋtಗಳ ಮIೆ` kB Aೋ EಾW-1 ರವರನು. ಮIೆ(ೆ EೇJo@ೊಳfgವಂDೆ ೇ@ೊಂದುb ಆಗ ಎ%ಾM, ಆ>ೋtಗಳf EೇJ@ೊಂಡು EಾW-1 EಾW-2; EಾW-4 ರವರುಗಳನು. ಮIೆಯ ಒಳ(ೆ EೇJಸ:ೇ EಾW-1 ರವJ(ೆ ಸೂ¼É ಮುಂcೆ, ೋB ಮುಂcೆ ಎಂದು ೈದು, ಹಣ ತರದ Aೊರತು ಮIೆಯ-ಒಳ(ೆ @ಾಟ'>ೇ |ೕವ ಸತ kಡುವeHಲM Gೆಂದು )ಾಣ ೆದJ@ೆ AಾQ ಅಪ>ಾಧGೆಸರುವeದು ತVjಾ @ಾಲದM ದೃಢಪಟು' ರುತ:ೆ.' DzÀÝjAzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀuï JೕDಾ* J1 jAzÀ J3 DgÉÆæUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A-498(J) 504, 506 >ೆ/+ 34 ಐto Aಾಗೂ, 3, 4 .t ಆx' JೕDಾ* ಎ4 Jಂದ ಎ5 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8755 CRL.P No. 9952 of 2025 ಆ>ೋtಗಳ +ರುದ€ ಕಲಂ-498(ಎ), 504, 506 >ೆ/+ 34 ಐto Aಾಗೂ 4 .t ಆx' JೕDಾ* :ೋsಾ>ೋಪೆ ಪO'ಯನು. =ಾನ* Iಾ*dಾಲಯ@ೆ^ VGೇHo@ೊಂರುDೆF." The complaint and the summary of the charge sheet if juxtaposed would not indicate any of the ingredients that are necessary to be driven home for an offence under Section 498A of the IPC is even present to its semblance. All the allegation is that sprinkling acts of the petitioners herein, which cannot mean it is cruelty for the purpose of demand of dowry. 8. Minor skirmishes that happen in a family or a joint family, as the case would be is what is projected to become a crime in a case where the husband and the wife lose compatibility. It is for the husband and the wife to sort out the differences or the husband to face the trial for the allegations that are levelled. The petitioners herein are the members of the family against whom there is nothing that can indicate the offence. Permitting further proceedings against these petitioners would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in (2022) SCC online SC 162; BELIDE SWAGATH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8755 CRL.P No. 9952 of 2025 TELANGANA reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2890 and MARAM NIRMALA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2913. 9. The Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR (supra), wherein it has held as follows: “Issue Involved 10. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the Appellants and Respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the in-laws Appellants are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed? 11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2018) 10 SCC 472, has observed:- “14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8755 CRL.P No. 9952 of 2025 the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.” 13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273), it was also observed:- “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a cognizable and non- bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand- fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8755 CRL.P No. 9952 of 2025 14. Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667, it has also been observed:- “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498AIPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498Aas a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8755 CRL.P No. 9952 of 2025 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 15. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 741, it was observed:- “21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Raovs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8755 CRL.P No. 9952 of 2025 members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: “there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.” The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.” 16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452, it was also observed that:- “6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial dispute sand 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.” 17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8755 CRL.P No. 9952 of 2025 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. 18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, 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. 19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR. Respondent No. 1 i.e., the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the Ld. Principal Judge Purnea, to not harass the Respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8755 CRL.P No. 9952 of 2025 constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 01.04.19, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17. 20. 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. 21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. In the light of the law as laid down by the Apex Court is considered, the facts obtaining in the case at hand are considered on the bedrock of the principles laid down by the Apex Court. Permitting further trial in the case at hand would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8755 CRL.P No. 9952 of 2025 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.23847/2024 pending on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33