- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14200 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. DASARI VENKATARAMUDU S/O APPAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 12/517 K-5, ADHARSHNAGAR NEAR BY MRO OFFICE, GUNTAKAL TALUK ANANTHPURA (DIST.) ANDHRA PRADESH – 515 801. 2. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI W/O DASARI VENKATARAMUDU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 12/517 K-5, ADHARSHNAGAR NEAR BY MRO OFFICE, GUNTAKAL TALUK ANANTHPURA (DIST) ANDHRA PRADESH – 515 801. 3. SMT. MADHURI LATHA W/O KIRAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 12/517 K-5, ADHARSHNAGAR NEAR BY MRO OFFICE, GUNTAKAL TALUK ANANTHPURA (DIST) Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 ANDHRA PRADESH – 515 801. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI NATARAJ D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BELLANDUR POLICE STATION BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE AT HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O CHINA VENKATESHWARALU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT YALUR VILLAGE GOUSEPAD MANDALAM KURNOOL (DIST) ANDHRA PRADESH – 518 573. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2-SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE F.I.R, ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS THEREIN ARISING OUT OF FIR IN QUESTION, SC NO. 1997/2022 (CRIME NO.224/2019) REGISTERED AT BELLANDUR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE SEC. 498(A), 306 AND 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners - accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are before the Court calling in question proceedings in S.C.No.1997/2022, pending on the file of the LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-72), Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 34 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri Nataraj D., learned counsel for petitioners and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. The complainant though served, has remained unrepresented even today. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: Petitioner are accused Nos.2 to 4 and respondent No.2 is the complainant. The daughter of the complainant is given in marriage to accused No.1. The relationship between the daughter of the complainant and accused No.1 is said to have turned sore. On a fateful day, i.e., 16.07.2019, the daughter of the complainant commits suicide. An axe of crime in Crime - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 No.224/2019 registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 34 of the IPC falls on all four accused. Husband is not before the Court. The present petition is preferred by accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against all the accused, out of whom accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are before the Court in the subject petition. 4. Sri Nataraj D., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the death note there is no whisper about any allegations against these petitioners of demand of dowry or harassment meted out upon the deceased that has led the daughter of the complainant to commit suicide. Learned counsel submits that even in the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet, there is no allegation that could touch upon the offences so alleged against the petitioners. He would submit that the law with regard to Section 306 of the IPC, is too well settled. 5. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 would refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in contending that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. The police after conduct of investigation, have filed the charge sheet. Since the charge sheet is filed, 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 learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts, dates and the link in the chain of the events are all a matter of record. The entire issue has now triggered from registration of the complaint. The complaint reads as follows. “ರವೆ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:17.07.2019 ೕ ಇ ೆಕ ರವರು, ೆಳಂದೂರು ೕ ಾೆ, ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ. ರವಂದ, !ಾ"ಾಯಣಮ& ' (ೋA )ಕ*+ೆಂಕ,ೇ- 59 ವಷ/, +ಾಸ ನಂ-ಇಲ2, 3ಾಲೂರು ಾ4ಮ, ೋ ಾ5 ಮಂಡಲಂ, ಕನೂ/7 89ೆ2, ಆಂಧ4ಪ4=ೇಶ "ಾಜ@. ªÉÆ. 8008523343 AಾB: 3ಾದವ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 Cಷಯ:- ನನD ಮಗಳE F4ೕಮB ಸG"ಾ=ೇC (ೊಂ ಅಮರ!ಾಥ, 28 ವಷ/ ರವರು ಮೃತ LೊಂMರುವ ಬೆO ದೂರು. !ಾನು Pೕಲ*ಂಡ CQಾಸದ2 ನನD ಪB F4ೕ )ನD+ೆಂಕ,ೇ- Lಾಗೂ ಮಗ F4ೕ(ಾಂR ರವ"ೊಂMೆ ಕQೆದ 50 ವಷ/ಗSಂದ +ಾಸ TಾU(ೊಂUರುVೆWೕ!ೆ. !ಾವX 8ೕವ!ೋಪಯ(ಾ*Y ವ@ವZಾಯದ (ೆಲಸ TಾU(ೊಂUರುVೆWೕ+ೆ. ನನD ಮಗ F4ೕ(ಾಂR ರವರು ವ@ವZಾಯ TಾU(ೊಂUರುVಾW"ೆ. ಸG"ಾ=ೇC ಎಂ.'.ಎ +ಾ@ಸಂಗ TಾU(ೊಂUರುVಾW"ೆ. ನನD ಮಗQಾದ F4ೕಮB ಸGೕ"ಾ=ೇC ರವರನುD ಆನಂತಪXರ 89ೆ2, ಗುಂತಕ7 ಮಂಡಲಂನ2 +ಾಸCರುವ F4ೕ +ೆಂಕಟ"ಾಮುಡು ಮತುW ಧನಲ]^=ೇC ರವರ ಮಗ!ಾದ F4ೕ ಅಮರ!ಾಥ U.ಎ ರವೆ _ಯರ ಸಮ`ಮ M!ಾಂಕ: 04.06.2015 ರಂದು ಗುಂತಕ7 ನ2ರುವ aUb ಕ9ಾ@ಣ ಮಂಟಪದ2 ನಮ& ಮತುW ಅಮರ!ಾಥ ರವರ ಕcೆಯ ಎ9ಾ2ರು ಒbe ಸಂಪ4=ಾಯ+ಾY C+ಾಹ TಾU(ೊaರುVೆWೕ+ೆ. _ೕYರು+ಾಗ ನನD ಮಗಳನುD C+ಾಹ+ಾದ ಅಮರ!ಾಥ ರವರು ತನD ಪBD F4ೕಮB ಸG"ಾ=ೇC ರವ"ೊಂMೆ ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ(ೆ* ಬಂದು ೆಳಂದೂರು ೇg, ಸAಾ/ಪXರ ರZೆWಯ2ರುವ F4ೕ Gತ4 ಅಾಟ/Pಂg ನ ಾ2g ನಂ-113 ರ2 +ಾಸ ಆYದhರು. C+ಾಹ C+ಾಹ C+ಾಹ C+ಾಹ ಆದ ಆದ ಆದ ಆದ Lೊಸದರ2 Lೊಸದರ2 Lೊಸದರ2 Lೊಸದರ2 ನನD ನನD ನನD ನನD ಮಗಳನುD ಮಗಳನುD ಮಗಳನುD ಮಗಳನುD iೆ!ಾDY iೆ!ಾDY iೆ!ಾDY iೆ!ಾDY !ೋU(ೊಳEBWದhನು !ೋU(ೊಳEBWದhನು !ೋU(ೊಳEBWದhನು !ೋU(ೊಳEBWದhನು. ನಂತರದ ನಂತರದ ನಂತರದ ನಂತರದ Mನಗಳ2 Mನಗಳ2 Mನಗಳ2 Mನಗಳ2 ನನD ನನD ನನD ನನD ಮಗಳ ಮಗಳ ಮಗಳ ಮಗಳ ಅVೆW3ಾದ ಅVೆW3ಾದ ಅVೆW3ಾದ ಅVೆW3ಾದ F4ೕಮB F4ೕಮB F4ೕಮB F4ೕಮB ಧನಲ]^ ಧನಲ]^ ಧನಲ]^ ಧನಲ]^ Tಾವ Tಾವ Tಾವ Tಾವ F4ೕ F4ೕ F4ೕ F4ೕ +ೆಂಕಟ"ಾಮುಡು +ೆಂಕಟ"ಾಮುಡು +ೆಂಕಟ"ಾಮುಡು +ೆಂಕಟ"ಾಮುಡು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು Lಾಗೂ Lಾಗೂ Lಾಗೂ Lಾಗೂ !ಾ@Mj !ಾ@Mj !ಾ@Mj !ಾ@Mj F4ೕಮB F4ೕಮB F4ೕಮB F4ೕಮB Tಾಧ Tಾಧ Tಾಧ Tಾಧ ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ನನD ನನD ನನD ನನD ಮಗಳ ಮಗಳ ಮಗಳ ಮಗಳ ಬೆO ಬೆO ಬೆO ಬೆO ತುಂಾ ತುಂಾ ತುಂಾ ತುಂಾ kೕQಾY kೕQಾY kೕQಾY kೕQಾY !ೋU !ೋU !ೋU !ೋU jೕನು jೕನು jೕನು jೕನು ಹSlಂದ ಹSlಂದ ಹSlಂದ ಹSlಂದ ಬಂದ ಬಂದ ಬಂದ ಬಂದ ಹುಡುY ಹುಡುY ಹುಡುY ಹುಡುY jನೆ jನೆ jನೆ jನೆ ಸ3ಾY ಸ3ಾY ಸ3ಾY ಸ3ಾY ಇಂY2m ಇಂY2m ಇಂY2m ಇಂY2m ಬರುವXMಲ2 ಬರುವXMಲ2 ಬರುವXMಲ2 ಬರುವXMಲ2 jೕನು jೕನು jೕನು jೕನು 3ಾವ 3ಾವ 3ಾವ 3ಾವ (ೆಲಸ(ೆ* (ೆಲಸ(ೆ* (ೆಲಸ(ೆ* (ೆಲಸ(ೆ* Zೇ(ೊಂUಲ2 Zೇ(ೊಂUಲ2 Zೇ(ೊಂUಲ2 Zೇ(ೊಂUಲ2 ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು TಾBನ2 TಾBನ2 TಾBನ2 TಾBನ2 _ಂZೆ _ಂZೆ _ಂZೆ _ಂZೆ jೕಡುBWದhರು jೕಡುBWದhರು jೕಡುBWದhರು jೕಡುBWದhರು. ನಂತರದ ನಂತರದ ನಂತರದ ನಂತರದ Mನಗಳ2 Mನಗಳ2 Mನಗಳ2 Mನಗಳ2 ನನD ನನD ನನD ನನD ಮಗಳನುD ಮಗಳನುD ಮಗಳನುD ಮಗಳನುD ನನD ನನD ನನD ನನD ಆSಯ ಆSಯ ಆSಯ ಆSಯ ಅಮರ!ಾn ಅಮರ!ಾn ಅಮರ!ಾn ಅಮರ!ಾn ರವರುವರ ರವರುವರ ರವರುವರ ರವರುವರ ತಂ=ೆ ತಂ=ೆ ತಂ=ೆ ತಂ=ೆ Vಾl Vಾl Vಾl Vಾl ಮತುW ಮತುW ಮತುW ಮತುW ಅವರ ಅವರ ಅವರ ಅವರ ತಂ ತಂ ತಂ ತಂYYYY TಾತುಗಳನುD TಾತುಗಳನುD TಾತುಗಳನುD TಾತುಗಳನುD (ೇS(ೊಂಡು (ೇS(ೊಂಡು (ೇS(ೊಂಡು (ೇS(ೊಂಡು ನನD ನನD ನನD ನನD ಮಗSೆ ಮಗSೆ ಮಗSೆ ಮಗSೆ ಪ4Bjತ@ ಪ4Bjತ@ ಪ4Bjತ@ ಪ4Bjತ@ Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾY Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾY Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾY Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾY _ಂZೆ _ಂZೆ _ಂZೆ _ಂZೆ TಾಡುBWರುವ TಾಡುBWರುವ TಾಡುBWರುವ TಾಡುBWರುವ ಬೆO ಬೆO ಬೆO ಬೆO ನನD ನನD ನನD ನನD ಮಗಳE ಮಗಳE ಮಗಳE ಮಗಳE ನಮ& ನಮ& ನಮ& ನಮ& ಮ!ೆೆ ಮ!ೆೆ ಮ!ೆೆ ಮ!ೆೆ ಬಂ=ಾಗ ಬಂ=ಾಗ ಬಂ=ಾಗ ಬಂ=ಾಗ ನಮ& ನಮ& ನಮ& ನಮ& ಬS ಬS ಬS ಬS Lಾಗೂ Lಾಗೂ Lಾಗೂ Lಾಗೂ ನಮ& ನಮ& ನಮ& ನಮ& ಸಂಬಂoಕ"ಾದ ಸಂಬಂoಕ"ಾದ ಸಂಬಂoಕ"ಾದ ಸಂಬಂoಕ"ಾದ F4ೕಮB F4ೕಮB F4ೕಮB F4ೕಮB ಉTಾ=ೇC ಉTಾ=ೇC ಉTಾ=ೇC ಉTಾ=ೇC ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ಬS ಬS ಬS ಬS ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ ತನD ತನD ತನD ತನD ಕಷಗಳನುD ಕಷಗಳನುD ಕಷಗಳನುD ಕಷಗಳನುD LೇS(ೊಳEತWದhಳE LೇS(ೊಳEತWದhಳE LೇS(ೊಳEತWದhಳE LೇS(ೊಳEತWದhಳE. ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ !ಾವX !ಾವX !ಾವX !ಾವX ಮತುW ಮತುW ಮತುW ಮತುW ನಮ& ನಮ& ನಮ& ನಮ& ಸಂಬಂoಕರು ಸಂಬಂoಕರು ಸಂಬಂoಕರು ಸಂಬಂoಕರು ನಮ& ನಮ& ನಮ& ನಮ& ಮಗSೆ ಮಗSೆ ಮಗSೆ ಮಗSೆ LೊಂM(ೊಂಡು LೊಂM(ೊಂಡು LೊಂM(ೊಂಡು LೊಂM(ೊಂಡು 8ೕವನ 8ೕವನ 8ೕವನ 8ೕವನ TಾಡುವಂVೆ TಾಡುವಂVೆ TಾಡುವಂVೆ TಾಡುವಂVೆ ಬುMh ಬುMh ಬುMh ಬುMh LೇS LೇS LೇS LೇS ಕಳE_ಸುVೆWದhವX ಕಳE_ಸುVೆWದhವX ಕಳE_ಸುVೆWದhವX ಕಳE_ಸುVೆWದhವX. ಈ ಈ ಈ ಈ ಸಮಯದ2 ಸಮಯದ2 ಸಮಯದ2 ಸಮಯದ2 ನನD ನನD ನನD ನನD ಮಗಳE ಮಗಳE ಮಗಳE ಮಗಳE ಗr/s3ಾY ಗr/s3ಾY ಗr/s3ಾY ಗr/s3ಾY M!ಾಂಕ M!ಾಂಕ M!ಾಂಕ M!ಾಂಕ: 15.08.2016 ರ2 ರ2 ರ2 ರ2 ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಗಂಡು ಗಂಡು ಗಂಡು ಗಂಡು ಮಗುCೆ ಮಗುCೆ ಮಗುCೆ ಮಗುCೆ ಜನ& ಜನ& ಜನ& ಜನ& jೕUರುVಾWQೆ jೕUರುVಾWQೆ jೕUರುVಾWQೆ jೕUರುVಾWQೆ, £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á+ೇ +ೇ +ೇ +ೇ ಆ(ೆಯ ಆ(ೆಯ ಆ(ೆಯ ಆ(ೆಯ ಾಣಂತನ ಾಣಂತನ ಾಣಂತನ ಾಣಂತನ TಾU TಾU TಾU TಾU ಪXನಃ ಪXನಃ ಪXನಃ ಪXನಃ ಆ(ೆಯ ಆ(ೆಯ ಆ(ೆಯ ಆ(ೆಯ ಗಂಡನ ಗಂಡನ ಗಂಡನ ಗಂಡನ ಮ!ೆೆ ಮ!ೆೆ ಮ!ೆೆ ಮ!ೆೆ ಕಳE_'ರುVೆWೕ+ೆ ಕಳE_'ರುVೆWೕ+ೆ ಕಳE_'ರುVೆWೕ+ೆ ಕಳE_'ರುVೆWೕ+ೆ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄUÀÄ d¤¹zÀ ನಂತರವX ನಂತರವX ನಂತರವX ನಂತರವX ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಆ(ೆ ಆ(ೆ ಆ(ೆ ಆ(ೆಯ ಯ ಯ ಯ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ, ಅVೆW ಅVೆW ಅVೆW ಅVೆW, Tಾವ Tಾವ Tಾವ Tಾವ Lಾಗೂ Lಾಗೂ Lಾಗೂ Lಾಗೂ !ಾMj !ಾMj !ಾMj !ಾMj ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾY Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾY Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾY Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾY »A¸É TಾಡುವXದು TಾಡುವXದು TಾಡುವXದು TಾಡುವXದು TಾಡುBWದhರು TಾಡುBWದhರು TಾಡುBWದhರು TಾಡುBWದhರು. ನಂತರ M!ಾಂಕ: 16.07.2019 ರಂದು ಸುTಾರು ಮ=ಾ@ಹD 1.30 ಗಂ,ೆೆ ನನD ಮಗಳ Tಾವ!ಾದ F4ೕ+ೆಂಕಟ"ಾಮುಡು ರವರು ನನD ಮಗ F4ೕ(ಾಂR ರವೆ ಕ"ೆ TಾU jಮ& ಮಗಳE ಸG"ಾ=ೇC ರವರು !ೇಣು rYದು(ೊಂಡು ಆತ&ಹVೆ@ TಾU(ೊಂUರುVಾWQೆಂದು BS'ದನು. ನಂತರ !ಾನು ನನD ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ@ೆ Ciಾರ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 BS' ಕೂಡ9ೇ M!ಾಂಕ: 17.07.2019 ರಂದು ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ(ೆ* ಬಂದು ಅಮರ!ಾn ರವರನುD Ciಾರ Tಾಡ9ಾY ಅಮರ!ಾn BS'=ೆhೕ!ೆಂದ"ೆ, M!ಾಂಕ: 16.09.2019 ರಂದು ೆSೆO 8.30 ಗಂ,ೆಯ2 ಆbೕ ೆ LೋYದುh, ನನ ಮಗ ಕೃಷuವಂFಯು vಾ9ೆೆ LೋYದುh, ಮ!ೆಯ2 ಸGೕ"ಾ=ೇC ಒಬwgÉ ಇರುVಾW"ೆ. ಮ=ಾ@ಹD 12.00 ಗಂ,ೆಯ2 ಮ!ೆೆ ಬಂ=ಾಗ ಮ!ೆಯ ಾYಲು Vೆ"ೆMದುh, ಮ!ೆxಳೆ !ೋಡ9ಾY ಸGೕ"ಾ=ೇC Lಾ7ನ2ರುವ 'ಂy ಾ@ೆ 'ೕ"ೆlಂದ !ೇಣು rYದು(ೊಂUದುh, 8ೕವ ಇರಬಹು=ೆಂದು ಆ(ೆಯನುD !ೇಣು ಕುs(ೆlಂದ (ೆಳYS' ಸGೕಪದ (ೊಲಂr3ಾ ಆಸeVೆ4ೆ Vೆೆದು(ೊಂಡು +ೈದ@ೆ Vೋಸ9ಾY ಸG"ಾ=ೇC ಈಾಗ9ೆ ಮೃತLೊಂMರುVಾW"ೆಂದು BS'ರುVಾW"ೆಂದು ನನD ಮತುW ನಮ& ಸಂಬಂoಕರ ಬS BS'ದನು. ನಂತರ !ಾವX ಸAಾ/ಪXರ ರZೆWಯ2ರುವ (ೊಂr3ಾ ಆಸeVೆ4ಯ ಶ+ಾಾರ(ೆ* LೋY ೕಸರು Vೋ'ದ ಮೃತ=ೇಹವನುD !ೋUದುh, ಸದ ಮೃತ =ೇಹವX ನನD ಮಗQಾದ F4ೕಮB ಸGೕ"ಾ=ೇC ರವರ ಮೃತ ಆYರುVೆWಂದು ಗುB/'ರುVೆWೕ!ೆ. ನನD ಮಗSೆ ಆ(ೆಯ ಗಂಡ Tಾವ ಅVೆW ಮತುW !ಾMj ರವರು jೕಡುBWದh Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾದ kರುಕುಳMಂದ Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾY !ೊಂM 8ಗುೆe LೊಂM !ೇಣು rYದು(ೊಂಡು ಮೃತQಾYರುVಾWQೆ. ಆದhಂದ ನನD ಮಗಳ ZಾCೆ (ಾರಣ"ಾದ ಆ(ೆಯ ಗಂಡ ಅಮರ!ಾಥ, Tಾವ F4ೕ+ೆಂಕಟ"ಾಮುಡು, ಅVೆW ಧನಲ]^ ಮತುW !ಾMj Tಾಧು ರವರ Cರುದ{ (ಾನೂನು ಕ4ಮ ಜರುYಸಲು Lಾಗೂ ನನD ಮಗಳ ZಾCೆ jಖರ+ಾದ (ಾರಣ BSಯಲು ಮೃತ =ೇಹವನುD ಮರೋತWರ ಪೕ}ೆೆ ಒಳಪU', ಮೃತ=ೇಹವನುD ಮುಂMನ (ಾಠ@C•ಾನಗSೆ ನನD ವಶ(ೆ* jೕಡಲು (ೋರ9ಾY=ೆ. ವಂದ!ೆಗQೆಂMೆ, ತಮ& Cvಾ€' ¸À»/- (£ÁgÁAiÀÄtªÀÄä)” (Emphasis added) The backdrop of the complaint is that, the relationship between accused No.1 and the daughter of the complainant had floundered and floundering of the relationship is alleged to be on certain circumstances including the demand of dowry by - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 accused No.1, the husband. A perusal at the complaint does not indicate that petitioners - accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 did resided with the couple. The police after investigation file the charge sheet. The charge sheet is for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 r/w. 34 of the IPC. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining under column No.7 reads as follows: “7. PÀ®A 498(J), 306 L¦¹ =ೋ•ಾ"ೋಪಾ ಪaಯ (ಾಲಂ ನಂ 04 ರ2 ನಮೂM'ರುವ ಎ1 ಂದ ಎ4 ಆ"ೋbಗಳE ಮತುW Zಾ]-1 ರವರು ಆಂಧ4ಪ4=ೇಶ ಮೂಲದವ"ಾYದುh, Zಾ]-1 ರವರು ತನD ಮಗQಾದ ಮೃತ ²æÃಮB ¸À«ÄÃvÁ zÉë gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 04.06.2015 ರಂದು ಆಂಧ4 ಪ4=ೇಶ "ಾಜ@ದ, ಗುಂತಕ7ನ2ರುವ aUb ಕ9ಾ@ಣ ಮಂಟಪದ2 vಾZೊ4ೕಕW+ಾY _ಂದೂ ಸಂಪ4=ಾಯದಂVೆ =ೋ•ಾ"ೋಪಣ ಪaಯ ಎ1 ಆ"ೋbಯ AೊVೆ C+ಾಹ TಾU(ೊaರುVಾW"ೆ, ಮದು+ೆಯ ನಂತರ ಎ1 ಆ"ೋbಯು ªÀÄÈVೆ F4ೕಮB ಸG"ಾ=ೇC ರವ"ೊಂMೆ ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ(ೆ* ಬಂದು oÁಾ ಸರಹMhನ ೆಳಂದೂರು ೇg, ಸAಾ/ಪXರ ರZೆWಯ2ರುವ F4ೕ Gತ4 ಅಾಟ/Pಂg ನ ಾ2g ನಂ-113 ರ2 +ಾಸ+ಾYರುVಾW"ೆ. C+ಾಹ ಆದ Lೊಸದರ2 ಎ1 ಆ"ೋbಯು ಮೃತಳನುD iೆ!ಾDY !ೋU(ೊಳEBWದುh, ಮೃತಳ ZಾಂZಾಕ 8ೕವನದ2 ಒಬw ಗಂಡು ಮಗು ಜj'ರುVಾW!ೆ. J1 ಆ"ೋbಯ ಆ"ೋbಯ ಆ"ೋbಯ ಆ"ೋbಯ ತಂ=ೆ ತಂ=ೆ ತಂ=ೆ ತಂ=ೆ ಎಎಎಎ2, Vಾl Vಾl Vಾl Vಾl ಎಎಎಎ3, ಮತುW ಮತುW ಮತುW ಮತುW ಸಂY3ಾದ ಸಂY3ಾದ ಸಂY3ಾದ ಸಂY3ಾದ ಎಎಎಎ4 ಆ"ೋbಗಳE ಆ"ೋbಗಳE ಆ"ೋbಗಳE ಆ"ೋbಗಳE ೆಂಗಳನ2ದh ೆಂಗಳನ2ದh ೆಂಗಳನ2ದh ೆಂಗಳನ2ದh ಮೃತಳ ಮೃತಳ ಮೃತಳ ಮೃತಳ ಮ!ೆೆ ಮ!ೆೆ ಮ!ೆೆ ಮ!ೆೆ ಆಾಗ ಆಾಗ ಆಾಗ ಆಾಗ ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು LೋಗುBWದುh LೋಗುBWದುh LೋಗುBWದುh LೋಗುBWದುh, ಮ!ೆೆ ಮ!ೆೆ ಮ!ೆೆ ಮ!ೆೆ ಬಂದ ಬಂದ ಬಂದ ಬಂದ ಸಮಯದ2 ಸಮಯದ2 ಸಮಯದ2 ಸಮಯದ2 ಮೃತಳ ಮೃತಳ ಮೃತಳ ಮೃತಳ ಬೆO ಬೆO ಬೆO ಬೆO ತುಂಾ ತುಂಾ ತುಂಾ ತುಂಾ kೕQಾY kೕQಾY kೕQಾY kೕQಾY !ೋಡುVಾW !ೋಡುVಾW !ೋಡುVಾW !ೋಡುVಾW, jೕನು jೕನು jೕನು jೕನು ಹSlಂದ ಹSlಂದ ಹSlಂದ ಹSlಂದ ಬಂದ ಬಂದ ಬಂದ ಬಂದ ಹುಡುY ಹುಡುY ಹುಡುY ಹುಡುY jನೆ jನೆ jನೆ jನೆ ಸ3ಾY ಸ3ಾY ಸ3ಾY ಸ3ಾY ಇಂY2m ಇಂY2m ಇಂY2m ಇಂY2m ಬರುವXMಲ2 ಬರುವXMಲ2 ಬರುವXMಲ2 ಬರುವXMಲ2, jೕನು jೕನು jೕನು jೕನು 3ಾವ 3ಾವ 3ಾವ 3ಾವ (ೆಲಸಕೂ* (ೆಲಸಕೂ* (ೆಲಸಕೂ* (ೆಲಸಕೂ* Zೇ(ೊಂUಲ2 Zೇ(ೊಂUಲ2 Zೇ(ೊಂUಲ2 Zೇ(ೊಂUಲ2, jನೆ jನೆ jನೆ jನೆ 3ಾವ 3ಾವ 3ಾವ 3ಾವ (ೆಲಸವƒ (ೆಲಸವƒ (ೆಲಸವƒ (ೆಲಸವƒ 'ಗುವXMಲ2 'ಗುವXMಲ2 'ಗುವXMಲ2 'ಗುವXMಲ2 ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು _ೕ3ಾSಸುVಾW _ೕ3ಾSಸುVಾW _ೕ3ಾSಸುVಾW _ೕ3ಾSಸುVಾW, jೕನು jೕನು jೕನು jೕನು ಸತುWLೋದ"ೆ ಸತುWLೋದ"ೆ ಸತುWLೋದ"ೆ ಸತುWLೋದ"ೆ ನಮ& ನಮ& ನಮ& ನಮ& ಹುಡುಗjೆ ಹುಡುಗjೆ ಹುಡುಗjೆ ಹುಡುಗjೆ ಮVೊWಂದು ಮVೊWಂದು ಮVೊWಂದು ಮVೊWಂದು ಒQೆ ಒQೆ ಒQೆ ಒQೆ ಹುಡುYಯನುD ಹುಡುYಯನುD ಹುಡುYಯನುD ಹುಡುYಯನುD CCCC+ಾಹ +ಾಹ +ಾಹ +ಾಹ TಾಡುವX=ಾY TಾಡುವX=ಾY TಾಡುವX=ಾY TಾಡುವX=ಾY LೇS LೇS LೇS LೇS kರುಕುಳ kರುಕುಳ kರುಕುಳ kರುಕುಳ jೕಡುBWದhರು jೕಡುBWದhರು jೕಡುBWದhರು jೕಡುBWದhರು ಮತುW ಮತುW ಮತುW ಮತುW ಎಎಎಎ1 ಆ"ೋbಯು ಆ"ೋbಯು ಆ"ೋbಯು ಆ"ೋbಯು ಎಎಎಎ2, ಎಎಎಎ3, ಎಎಎಎ4 ಆ"ೋbಗಳ ಆ"ೋbಗಳ ಆ"ೋbಗಳ ಆ"ೋbಗಳ TಾತನುD TಾತನುD TಾತನುD TಾತನುD (ೇS(ೊಂಡು (ೇS(ೊಂಡು (ೇS(ೊಂಡು (ೇS(ೊಂಡು ಮೃತQೆಂMೆ ಮೃತQೆಂMೆ ಮೃತQೆಂMೆ ಮೃತQೆಂMೆ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ TಾಡುVಾW TಾಡುVಾW TಾಡುVಾW TಾಡುVಾW =ೈ_ಕ =ೈ_ಕ =ೈ_ಕ =ೈ_ಕ ಮತುW ಮತುW ಮತುW ಮತುW Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾY Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾY Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾY Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾY kರುಕುಳ kರುಕುಳ kರುಕುಳ kರುಕುಳ jೕಡುBWರುVಾW!ೆ jೕಡುBWರುVಾW!ೆ jೕಡುBWರುVಾW!ೆ jೕಡುBWರುVಾW!ೆ ಈ ಈ ಈ ಈ ಬೆO ಬೆO ಬೆO ಬೆO ಮೃVೆ ಮೃVೆ ಮೃVೆ ಮೃVೆ ಸGೕ"ಾ ಸGೕ"ಾ ಸGೕ"ಾ ಸGೕ"ಾ =ೇC =ೇC =ೇC =ೇC ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ಬದುk=ಾhಗ ಬದುk=ಾhಗ ಬದುk=ಾhಗ ಬದುk=ಾhಗ ತನD ತನD ತನD ತನD ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಮತುW ಮತುW ಮತುW ಮತುW ಆ(ೆಯ ಆ(ೆಯ ಆ(ೆಯ ಆ(ೆಯ ಮ!ೆಯವ"ಾದ ಮ!ೆಯವ"ಾದ ಮ!ೆಯವ"ಾದ ಮ!ೆಯವ"ಾದ ಎಎಎಎ1 ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎಎಎಎ4 ಆ"ೋbಗಳE ಆ"ೋbಗಳE ಆ"ೋbಗಳE ಆ"ೋbಗಳE jೕಡುBWದh jೕಡುBWದh jೕಡುBWದh jೕಡುBWದh kರುಕುಳದ kರುಕುಳದ kರುಕುಳದ kರುಕುಳದ ಬೆO ಬೆO ಬೆO ಬೆO Zಾ] Zಾ] Zಾ] Zಾ]- 1, Zಾ] Zಾ] Zಾ] Zಾ]-2, Zಾ] Zಾ] Zಾ] Zಾ]-3 ಮತುW ಮತುW ಮತುW ಮತುW Zಾ] Zಾ] Zಾ] Zಾ]-4 ರವ"ೊಂMೆ ರವ"ೊಂMೆ ರವ"ೊಂMೆ ರವ"ೊಂMೆ ದೂರ+ಾs ದೂರ+ಾs ದೂರ+ಾs ದೂರ+ಾs ಮೂಲಕ ಮೂಲಕ ಮೂಲಕ ಮೂಲಕ Lಾಗೂ Lಾಗೂ Lಾಗೂ Lಾಗೂ ಊೆ ಊೆ ಊೆ ಊೆ - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 Lೋ=ಾಗ9ೆ9ಾ2 Lೋ=ಾಗ9ೆ9ಾ2 Lೋ=ಾಗ9ೆ9ಾ2 Lೋ=ಾಗ9ೆ9ಾ2 LೇS(ೊಂUರುVಾW"ೆ LೇS(ೊಂUರುVಾW"ೆ LೇS(ೊಂUರುVಾW"ೆ LೇS(ೊಂUರುVಾW"ೆ. Zಾ] Zಾ] Zಾ] Zಾ]-1, Zಾ] Zಾ] Zಾ] Zಾ]-2, Zಾ] Zಾ] Zಾ] Zಾ]-3 ಮತುW ಮತುW ಮತುW ಮತುW Zಾ] Zಾ] Zಾ] Zಾ]-4 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ಮೃತSೆ ಮೃತSೆ ಮೃತSೆ ಮೃತSೆ ಸಂZಾಕ ಸಂZಾಕ ಸಂZಾಕ ಸಂZಾಕ 8ೕವನದ 8ೕವನದ 8ೕವನದ 8ೕವನದ ದೃ…lಂದ ದೃ…lಂದ ದೃ…lಂದ ದೃ…lಂದ ಅನುಸ'(ೊಂಡು ಅನುಸ'(ೊಂಡು ಅನುಸ'(ೊಂಡು ಅನುಸ'(ೊಂಡು LೋಗುವಂVೆ LೋಗುವಂVೆ LೋಗುವಂVೆ LೋಗುವಂVೆ ಬುMh+ಾದ ಬುMh+ಾದ ಬುMh+ಾದ ಬುMh+ಾದ LೇS LೇS LೇS LೇSರುVಾW"ೆ ರುVಾW"ೆ ರುVಾW"ೆ ರುVಾW"ೆ. ಮೃVೆ F4ೕಮB ಸGೕಾ =ೇC ಯವೆ ಎ1 ಂದ ಎ4 ಆ"ೋbಗಳE jೕಡುBWದh kರುಕುಳ Vಾಳ9ಾರ=ೇ ಮನ!ೊಂದು M!ಾಂಕ 16.07.2019 ರಂದು ೆSೆO 8.30 ಗಂ,ೆlಂದ, ಮ=ಾ@ಹD 12-00 ಗಂ,ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ2 ಮ!ೆಯ2 3ಾರೂ ಇಲ2ದ ಸಮಯದ2 cೆR !ೋg ಬ"ೆMಟು, ಮ!ೆಯ Lಾ7ನ2ನ 'ೕಂy ಾ@ೆ 'ೕ"ೆlಂದ !ೇಣು rYದು(ೊಂಡು ಆತ&ಹVೆ@ TಾU(ೊಂUರುVಾW"ೆ. ಆದhಂದ ಆ"ೋbಗಳ Cರುದh Pೕಲ*ಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳನ€ಯ =ೋ•ಾ"ೋಪಾ ಪa ತ3ಾ'=ೆ.” (Emphasis added) Apart from the afore-quoted complaint and the summary of the charge sheet, it becomes necessary to notice the statement of the person who has translated the death note, in which the observation is as follows: “…. …. …. "b4ೕBಯ ಬಂಧುಬಳಗ(ೆ* ಬ"ೆಯುBWರುವ ನನD (ೊ!ೆಯ ಪತ4, ನನD ಗಂಡ ಬಂಾರ ಆತ ನನDನುD ಚ!ಾDY !ೋU(ೊಂUದhನು. ದಯTಾU !ಾನು ಸತW ನಂತರ ಆತನ ತಂ,ೆೆ LೋಗೇU ಆತನನುD ಒಂದು Tಾತು ೈದರು ನನD ಆತ& ಸಂVೋಷ ಆಗುವXMಲ2. ನನD ಗಂಡ ಬಂಾರ. ಅTಾ& jಮ& ಋಣ Bೕ'(ೊಳಲು ಪXನಃ jಮ& ಮ!ೆಯ2ˆೕ ಹುಟೇ(ೆಂದು (ೋ(ೊಳEBW=ೆh!ೆ. ನನD ಮಗ ಎಂದ"ೆ ನನೆ ಾ4ಣ ಆದ"ೆ 3ಾ(ೋ Zಾಯೇಕು ಎjDಸುBW=ೆ, ಮಗ ವಂF ನನDನುD `Gಸು, jೕನು ಚ!ಾDY ಓM(ೊಂಡು =ೊಡŠ ಮನುಷ@!ಾಗೇ(ೆಂದು ನನD (ೋ(ೆ. ನನD (ೊ!ೆಯ ಆZೆ !ೆರ+ೆಸು ನನD ಅVೆW Tಾವರವರು ನನDನುD jಜ+ಾಗಲು ಚ!ಾDY !ೋU(ೊಳEBWದhರು. ಅವರನುD ಸಹ ಏನು ಅನDೇU. ನನD ಗಂಡjೊಸ*ರ Zಾಯೇಕು ಅjDಸುBW=ೆ. ನಮ& ಮಗ ಹು•ಾರು ಅಮ" ಎಂದು ಬ"ೆMರುVಾW"ೆ. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 !ಾನು cೆR!ೊg ಅನುD Vೆಲುಗು Œಾ•ೆಯ2 ಓM ಅದನುD ಕನDಡದ2 ತಜು/P TಾU LೇSದುh, !ಾನು ತಜು/P TಾU LೇSದhನುD ಕನDಡ Œಾ•ೆಯ2 ,ೈ• TಾUದುh ಸ3ಾYರುತW=ೆ.” If all the three are read together, there would be nothing that can drive home the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. 8. The offences that are alleged against the petitioners are the ones punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. The interpretation of what would become an offence under Section 498A of the IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR1, wherein, it is 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 appellant in-laws are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed? 1 (2022) 6 SCC 599 or 2022 SCC Online SC 162 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498-AIPC 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 Section 498-AIPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. [Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472: (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 301] , has observed : (SCC pp. 478-79, para 14) “14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at 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 Act 46 of 1983. The expression “cruelty” in Section 498-A 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. [Explanation to Section 498-A.] It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married women. We have 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 visualised. 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.” - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273: (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4) “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 quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36) “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498- AIPC 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 is also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre 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 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity 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 visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 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 the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the 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 scrutinised 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 an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741: (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21) “21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] 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 members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para 12) ‘12. … There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the 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 commission of 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 other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their 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. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6) “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 basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 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 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. 19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR Respondent 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 learned 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 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 1-4-2019, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11-12-2017. 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 appellant in-laws 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 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 8.1. The Apex Court in the case of MARAM NIRMALA v. STATE OF TELANGANA reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2913, has held as follows: “….. ….. ….. 12. The appellant(s) herein are the mother-in-law and father- in-law of respondent No. 2. They had filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings instituted against them in C.C. No. 338/2023 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise offence) at Nalgonda alleging offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. 13. By the impugned order, the said criminal petition has been disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant(s) herein to seek discharge in accordance with law. Hence, this appeal. 14. The case at hand pertains to allegations of cruelty and dowry demand made by the respondent No. 2 against the appellant(s) herein. A bare perusal of the FIR however, shows that the allegations made by respondent No. 2 are vague and omnibus inasmuch as there is an absence of any specific instance or occasion detailed with particulars wherein the appellant(s) demanded dowry from respondent No. 2 and on refusal of the same, subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. The only allegations levelled by respondent No. 2 against the appellants herein are that subsequent to the birth of her daughter, the conduct of her husband underwent a change, which is stated to have been on account of the alleged inducement exercised by the in-laws including the appellant(s) herein for the purpose of demanding additional dowry and that pursuant to the counselling conducted at the Women Police Station, Nalgonda, although the husband of respondent No. 2 and his family assured that she would be treated properly, they nevertheless continued to subject respondent No. 2 to mental and physical cruelty. 15. We therefore find that the aforesaid allegations levelled against the appellant(s), even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offences so as to warrant the initiation of criminal proceedings. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 16. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the appellant(s) brought to our notice the judgment of this Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 (“Dara Lakshmi Narayana”) as well as other judgments which squarely apply to this case. We have perused the same. 17. This Court speaking through one of us (B.V. Nagarathna, J.) in Dara Lakshmi Narayana, while dealing with the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings instituted by the respondent wife therein against her husband and in- laws who were charged with offences punishable under Sections 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961, held as follows: “27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. xxx - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 30. The inclusion of Section 498-A IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-AIPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-A IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. xxx 31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498-A IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant, husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498-A IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 xxx 34. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by Respondent 2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against Appellant 1 and his family members i.e. Appellants 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within Category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426]. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.” (underlining by us) 18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the judgment of this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana would apply. Hence, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The proceedings instituted against the appellant(s) in C.C. No. 338/2023 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise offence) at Nalgonda stand quashed in relation to the appellants herein.” (Emphasis supplied) If the facts obtaining in the case at hand, i.e., the complaint, the summary of the charge sheet and the statement made in the death note are taken note of, what would unmistakably emerge is, permitting further proceedings against the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4 would become an abuse of the process of the law qua the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 9. What remains is the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. For an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the ingredients under Section 307 of the IPC are necessarily to be present. Section 107 reads as follows: “107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” (Emphasis supplied) - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 Section 107 of the IPC defines abetment. The interpretation of Section 107 or 306 of the IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of GEETA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1938, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 17. For the purpose of examining whether the ingredients of Section 306 are attracted, we take the prosecution case as it is. Taken at its highest, there is definitely evidence on record to show that over a period of few months the neighbours were at loggerheads. While the victim felt that her tuition classes were being disturbed, the appellant's family have also had a grievance about the victim and her family scolding the children of the appellant's household. There is no doubt that not only were there heated exchanges, but physical blows were also alleged to have been administered by the appellant's party. Insofar as delivering of physical blows are concerned, today the appellant stands acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 323. She stands acquitted even for the offences punishable under Section 504 and 506. The State has not preferred any appeal. 18. Even if we were to assume that physical blows were administered, will that per se constitute abetment to suicide? This Court in a case where the accused told the deceased “go and die” and when thereafter, the deceased committed suicide, absolved the accused of the charge under Section 306 by holding as under: “3. …Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. …” [Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438] 19. This Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628, held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306. 20. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held that the harassment meted out to the victim should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to his/her life. 21. In M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626, this Court followed the dictum in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under: “41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant-accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.” Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:— 45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.” 22. This Court in Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76, after analyzing the long line of precedents held as under:— “18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” 23. Applying the tests laid down hereinabove, we are not able to persuade ourselves to hold that when the appellant's family and the victim's family had heated exchanges, there was any intention to abet or to cause any member of either family to take their own life. These quarrels occur in everyday life, and on facts we are not able to conclude that there was an instigation on the part of the appellant to - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 such an extent that the victim was left with no other option but to commit suicide.” (Emphasis supplied) 9.1. In its latest judgment, the Apex Court in the case of YADWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2332, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 16. This Court in the case of “Nipun Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh”, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091 has succinctly explained the Principles of law governing abetment. We quote the relevant observations as under:— “13. The law governing Section 306 of the IPC is well settled. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:— “306. Abetment of suicide. —If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 14. Thus, the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. Abetment of a thing is defined under Section 107 of the IPC as under:— “107. Abetment of a thing.— A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First. — Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.— Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 Thirdly.— Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.— A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.— Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 17. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144, after considering the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC, has observed as under:— “14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. 15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088, has defined the word ‘instigate’ as under: “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. 16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465, it was observed as under:— “25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” (emphasis supplied) 17. Thus, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement /incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. The act of instigation as alleged must be with the intention to push the deceased into such a situation that she is left with no other option but to commit suicide. 18. In the case on hand, even if we believe that the appellant due to opposition and pressure from his family declined to get married with the deceased, it could not be said that he led to a situation by which the deceased was left with no other option but to commit the suicide. The appellant could not be said to have intended the consequences of his act namely suicide. It is very sad to note that a young girl took the extreme step of ending her life. It is possible that she might have felt hurt. One sensitive moment took away the life of a young girl. However, as judges we should not allow our minds get boggled with such thoughts. We are obliged to decide the matter on the basis of the evidence on record. In other words whether the allegations levelled constitute any offence. Mere refusal to marry even if true by itself would not amount to instigation as explained under Section 107 of the IPC.” (Emphasis supplied) - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgments has clearly interpreted what could become the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. If the ingredients as found in Section 107 of the IPC is completely met, Section 306 of the IPC would kick in. A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet, the complaint or the statement made in the death note, nowhere would indicate even an iota of all these ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC being met for it to become an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court as quoted hereinabove, further proceedings even qua the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, against the petitioners - accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 cannot be permitted to be continued. If further proceedings are permitted to be continued, it would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. It is no doubt true that a precious life is lost; it is lost on manifold circumstances as the human mind is an enigma. Therefore, permitting trial to continue against the petitioners, who are not prima facie involved in the act, to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial, would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13417 CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The criminal petition is allowed. b. The proceedings in S.C.No.1997/2022 (arising out of Crime No.224/2019), pending on the file of the LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-72), Bengaluru, qua the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4, stand quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 32 CT:SS