- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8068 CRL.P No. 8021 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8021 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. LOKESH BABU S/O HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.493, 13TH A CROSS, 28TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR, 1ST PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078. 2. SMT. UMADEVI, W/O HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO.493, 13TH A CROSS, 28TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR, 1ST PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078. 3. HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.493, 13TH A CROSS, 28TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR, 1ST PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078. 4. CHANDRAIAH S/O KAMBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT HOSURU, KAMALAPURA POST HANDANKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI - 571 217 Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8068 CRL.P No. 8021 of 2023 TUMKURU DISTRICT. 5. JAYAMMA @ JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O CHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT HOSURU, KAMALAPURA POST HANDANKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI - 571 2177 TUMKUR DISTRICT. 6. VEDAMURTHY S/O CHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT HOSURU, KAMALAPURA POST, HANDANAKEREHOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI - 5712177 TUMKURU DISTRICT. 7. BHAGYA W/O VEDAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT HOSURU, KAMALAPURA POST, HANDANAKEREHOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI - 5712177 TUMKURU DISTRICT. 8. CHETANA W/O PUTTEGOWDA T K AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT SAKREPATNA CHIKKAMAGALUR KARNATAKA - 577 135 9. PALLAVI H M W/O JAYANTH S M AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8068 CRL.P No. 8021 of 2023 R/AT BRUNDAVANA 2ND STAGE MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARA NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. 10. MANJUNATHA S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, DEGGENAHALLI KAMALAPURA KAMALAPURA POST HANDANKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI - 572 119 TUMKURU DISTRICT. 11. PUSHPA W/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, DEGGENAHALLI KAMALAPURA KAMALAPURA POST, HANDANKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI - 572 119 TUMKURU DISTRICT. 12. VENKATESH S/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, DEGGENAHALLI KAMALAPURA KAMALAPURA POST, HANDANKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI - 572 119 TUMKURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DR. AMIT ANAND DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8068 CRL.P No. 8021 of 2023 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHIVAMOGGA WOMEN POLICE STATION REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI S.M W/O LOKESH BABU AND OTHERS AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BRINDAVAN 2ND STAGE, MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARA NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. UMESH P.B, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.64/2023 REGISTERED BY THE SHIVAMOGGA WOMEN POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 504, 323, 324, 506, 114, 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C. - II COURT, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA VIDE ANENXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE FIR VIDE ANNEXURE-B BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.P WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8068 CRL.P No. 8021 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 12 stand at the doors of this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.64/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 506, 114 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Heard the learned counsel Dr. Amit Anand Deshpande for the petitioners, learned counsel Shri Umesh P.B. for the complainant / Respondent No.2 and the learned HCGP for the State. 3. Before embarking upon the consideration of the issue on its merit, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the parties to the lis. The accused No.1 is the husband of the complainant. Accused No. 2, 3 and 4 are the mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law, respectively. Accused No. 5 is the wife of accused No.4. Accused Nos. 6 to 12 are the other family members of accused No.1 - husband. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8068 CRL.P No. 8021 of 2023 4. The accused No.1 and the complainant get married on 09.02.2014. After about eight years of the marriage, it transpires that the relationship between the two flounders. On floundering of the relationship, the proceedings are instituted by the petitioner against the wife or wife against the petitioner. After fighting a battle between each other before the Civil Court, comes the impugned crime, which is registered on 25.06.2023 for the afore-quoted offences. The moment the crime is registered, the petitioners are before this Court calling in question the said registration of the crime. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted an interim order of stay qua all the petitioners and the said interim order is operating even as on date. 5. Dr. Amit Anand Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the allegations against the petitioners cannot be seen to be forming the ingredients of Section 498A or any other offence that is alleged. Therefore, if further investigation is permitted against the petitioners, it would become an abuse of the process of the law. He would seek to place reliance upon a plethora of judgments - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8068 CRL.P No. 8021 of 2023 rendered by the Apex Court or this Court, as the case would be, to buttress his submission that the investigation itself should not be permitted to be continued in the case at hand. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, Shri Umesh P.B., would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the matter is still at the stage of investigation and this Court should not lend its protective hands to the petitioners who have abused and tortured the complainant - wife. Merely because divorce proceedings or any other proceedings are pending between the parties, it cannot be the rule that the criminal proceedings should be quashed at the stage of investigation. Therefore, he would seek dismissal of the petition contending that the complaint clearly narrates the offences against all the petitioners. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and I have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The relationship between the parties is what is narrated - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8068 CRL.P No. 8021 of 2023 hereinabove. The floundering of the relationship between accused No.1 - husband and respondent No.2 - wife has led the complainant to register the subject crime. The entire issue has now triggered from registration of the complaint. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint, which reads as follows: "ನನನು 8 ೆಬ ವ 2021 ರಂದು ನನ ೕಷಕರ ಮೆೆ ಕಳದ ನಂತರ, ನನ ಪ ತನ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ#ರ ಸ$ಾಯ'ಂದ ನನ ಅನುಮ )ಲ+,ೆ ನನ -ಾಭರಣವನು 0ರ1 ಇಟು3, ಎ5ಾ+ ಹಣವನು ಕಬ7,ಾ89ೆ, ನನ ಎ5ಾ+ :ಾನೂನು ,ಾಖ5ೆಗ>ಾದ ?ಾ#@ :ಾAB, ಮತ,ಾರರ ಗುರು ನ -ೕC ಮತುD Eಾ#ಂF GೆF ಪHಸDಕವನು Iೆೆದು:ೊಳJ5ಾ0,ೆ, Kೕಸೆ ದೂರು LೕMದ9ೆ, ಅವರ Nೇತರ ಸ$ಾಯ'ಂದ ನನ Oೕ5ೆ GೆF Eೌ@Q, ಪ ಕರಣವನು ,ಾಖKಸುವH,ಾ0 ಅವನು ನನೆ Eೆದ:ೆ $ಾಕು Dದ8ನು. ಾನು SಾTB 5, 2022 ಉ7ಯಲು ಅIೆDಯ ಮೆೆ $ೋ,ಾಗ ಮತುD ನನನು ಮರ7 ಕ9ೆಯ'ರಲು :ಾರಣ :ೇ7,ಾಗ, 20 ಲW ಹಣ ತರದ $ೊರತು ಈ ಮೆYಳೆ :ಾKಡEೇM ಎಂದು 5ೋ:ೇ[ $ೇ7,ಾ89ೆ. ನನ ಗಂಡ ನನನು $ೊ\ೆದರು ಮತುD ನನ ಎ5ಾ+ ಬ]ೆ3ಗಳನು Iೆೆದು:ೊಂಡು ಮೆ)ಂದ $ೊರಡುವಂIೆ ಆ,ೇ_ದರು. ಆ,ಾಗೂ# ಅವರನು ಮನ`Kಸುವ aಾವH,ೇ SಾಗB1ಲ+,ೆ ಾನು ನನ ಬ]ೆ3 ಮತುD ಮಕbಳ ಬ]ೆ3ಗಳನು ?ಾ#F SಾಡEೇ:ಾ)ತು. ಆದ9ೆ ಅವರು ನನೆ -ನ Eೆ7J, ಸ SಾMದ GೆF ಬುF ಮತುD ಇತರ ಪ ಮುಖ ,ಾಖ5ೆಗಳನು ನನೆ LೕಡKಲ+, ಅದನು ಅವರು ಈಾಗ5ೇ ನನೆ ಗದ ಸcಳದK+ ಮ9ೆSಾMದ8ರು. Rupeek -ನದ NಾಲNೌಲಭ#ದ ಮೂಲಕ ನನ -ನವನು ೆಡರi Eಾ#ಂF ನK+ ಒIೆD ಇಡ5ಾ)ತು ಮತುD ಅವರ ಕೃತ#ಗಳನು ಯರು ಪ _,ಾಗ, ಅವನು ಮೆ)ಂದ ಓM$ೋದನು. ಆನಂತರ ಒಂದು ಂಗಳ ಸಮಯದ ನಂತರ ನನ -ನವನು ಂ'ರು0ಸುವH,ಾ0 5ೋ:ೇ[, ಹನುಮಯ# ಮತುD ಉSಾ,ೇ1 ಭರವNೆ LೕMದರು ಮತುD ಅದರ ಬೆm Kೕಸೆ ದೂರು LೕಡEೇM ಎಂದು $ೇ7ದರು ನನೆ ಎರಡು ಮಕbಳ ಇ,ಾ89ೆ $ಾಗು ಅವ9ೆೆ ತಂ,ೆ $ಾಗೂ Iಾ)ಯ n ೕ ಗEೇಕು ಎಂದು ಅವರ ಎಲ+ ಕೃತ#ಗಳನ ಸ:ೊಂ\ೆ ಬಂ,ೆ ಆದ9ೆ ಎಂ'ನಂIೆ ನನ ಪ ಮತುD ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು ತಮo Sಾತನು ಉ7:ೊಳJKಲ+, ಮತುD ಅವರು ಎಂ'ಗೂ ಮರ7 ಬರKಲ+ - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8068 CRL.P No. 8021 of 2023 ಪಲ+1, ಮಂಜುಾq, ಪHಷr, sೆಂಕ]ೇ[ aಾsಾಗಲೂ 5ೋ:ೇ[ ೆ ನನ ಬೆm ದೂರು Lೕಡು Dದ8ರು. ನನನು ಅವರ ಾ ಮ:ೆb ಕ9ೆದು:ೊಂಡು $ೋ0 ನನನು :ೊಂದು ತಮo ಜtೕLನK+ ಹೂತು $ೋಗುವಂIೆ 5ೋ:ೇ[ ೆ ಒIಾD)ಸು Dದ8ರು, 11 April 2022 ಪಲ+1 ಮತುD ಆ:ೆಯ ೕಷಕ9ಾದ ಮಂಜುಾಥ ಮತುD ಪHzಾ ಮತುD ಆ:ೆಯ ಅಣ{ sೆಂಕ]ೇ[ ನನ ೕಷಕರ ಮೆೆ ಬಂದು ನನ Oೕ5ೆ ವಸುDಗಳನು ಎNೆದು ಅಸಂಸ'ೕಯ |ಾzೆ ಬಳಸು Dದ8ರು. ನನ ಕತುD Mದು:ೊಂಡು :ೊ5ೆ Sಾಡಲು ಯ ದರು ಮತುD ನನನು ಮೆ)ಂದ $ೊರೆ ಎ>ೆ,ೊಯು8 ನನ Oೕ5ೆ ,ೈಕ ,ೌಜBನ#ವನು ?ಾ ರಂ~,ಾಗ ನನ ೕಷಕರು ಸ$ಾಯ:ಾb0 ತುತುB Kೕ• Nೇsೆೆ ಕ9ೆ SಾMದರು. 5ೋ:ೇ[ ಮತುD ಅವನ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ#ರು ಮತುD ಪಲ+1 ಮತುD ಆ:ೆಯ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ#ರು :ೈ€ೋM ನನನು ಮತುD ನನ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ#ರನು (ನನ ೕಷಕರು ಒಡಹುC3ದವರು ಮತುD ಮಕbಳನು) :ೊಲ+ಲು Yೕಜೆ ರೂnದ8ರು. ಅವರ ƒEೈi ಸಂ|ಾಷ„ೆ)ಂದ ಅವರ ಎ5ಾ+ Yೕಜೆಗಳ ಬೆm ನನೆ 7)ತು, ನನ ಗಂಡನ ƒEೈi sಾ]ಾQ… Gಾ† ಮತುD ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಪ Yಬ‡ ಸದಸ#ರ ನಡು1ನ Sೌˆಕ ಸಂ|ಾಷ„ೆ)ಂದ ನನೆ ಮತುD ನನ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ#ರ ‰ೕವ ಮತುD :ೈ:ಾಲುಗ7ೆ ಗಂ~ೕರ Eೆದ:ೆ ಇ,ೆ ಎಂದು 7ದುಬಂ',ೆ. ಾನು ದೂರK+ $ಾಕಲು Nಾಧ#sಾಗದ ಹಲsಾರು ಸಂದಭBಗ7sೆ $ಾಗು ತುಂಬ 1ಷಯಗಳ $ೇಳವHದು:ೆb :ಾರಣ :ೇವಲ :ೆಲವH ಸಂದಭBಗಳ ಮ Sಾತ ಈ ಪತ ದK+ $ೇ7,ೆ8ೕೆ, 5ೋ:ೇ[, ಪಲ+1 ಮತುD ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಸದಸ#ರು _ ೕಮಂತರು ಮತುD 9ಾಜ‹ೕಯ Eೆಂಬಲವನು $ೊಂ'ರುವ :ಾರಣ ಾನು ಈ ದೂನ ಪ ಯನು ಅಗತ# ಪH9ಾsೆಗ>ೆŒಂ'ೆ ಉನತ ಅ•:ಾಗ7ೆ ಇOೕi SಾM,ೆ8ೕೆ. ಅಲ+,ೆ, ಾನು Lಮo ಗಮನ:ೆb ಒಂದು ಪ ಮುಖ ಅಂಶವನು ತರಲು ಬಯಸುIೆDೕೆ, 5ೋ:ೇ[, ಪಲ+1 ಮತುD ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಸದಸ#ರು ನನೆ Kೕಸೆ ದೂರು LೕಡದಂIೆ Eೆದ:ೆ $ಾ‹,ಾ89ೆ ಮತುD ಾನು ದೂರು LೕMದ9ೆ ಅವರು ನನನು ಮತುD ನನ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ#ರನು ಆದಷು3 Eೇಗ :ೊಲು+Iೇsೆ ಎಂದು Eೆದ:ೆ $ಾ‹,ಾ89ೆ, ದೂರು ,ಾಖKಸಲು ನನೆ ತುಂEಾ ಭಯsಾ0ತುD. ಈಗಲೂ ನನೆ ತುಂEಾ ಭಯsಾಗು D,ೆ. ಆ,ಾಗೂ#, ವ‹ೕಲರ :ಾನೂನು ಸಲ$ೆ ಮತುD Nೇತರು ಮತುD ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ#ರ ೈ ಕ Eೆಂಬಲ,ೊಂ'ೆ ಾ#ಯ:ಾb0 $ೋ9ಾಡಲು ಾನು ಈ ದೂರನು ಸK+ಸು D,ೆ8ೕೆ. ಈ ಅಂಶಗಳನು ಗಮನದK+ಟು3:ೊಂಡು, ನನೆ ಅಥsಾ ನನ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ#ೆ ದೂರು Lೕಡುವ ಮೂಲಕ 5ೋ:ೇ[, ಪಲ+1 ಮತುD ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಸದಸ#ಂದ ನಮೆ ಏಾದ9ೋ ಸಂಭ1ದ9ೆ, ದೂನK+ ಉ5ೆ+ೕˆರುವ 5ೋ:ೇ[, ಪಲ+1 ಮತುD ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಸದಸ#ರು ಎಲ+ದಕೂb ಪ ತ#W ಅಥsಾ ಪ9ೋWsಾ0 $ೊ„ೆಾರ9ಾ0ರುIಾD9ೆ. ಎ5ಾ+ ೌರವಗ>ೆŒಂ'ೆ, ನಮೆ - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8068 CRL.P No. 8021 of 2023 ಏಾದರೂ ಸಂಭ1ದK+, ದೂನ ಪ ಮತುD ಎ5ಾ+ ಪH9ಾsೆಗ>ೆŒಂ'ೆ Kೕ• ಇ5ಾ•ೆಯ ಎ5ಾ+ ಉನತ ಅ•:ಾಗಳ ಮತುD ಪ ಮುಖ Sಾಧ#ಮ ಸಂNೆcಗ7ೆ ಸ‘ಯಂGಾKತ Oೕi ಕಳಸ5ಾಗುತD,ೆ." Immediately after the registration of the complaint, the petitioners approach this Court, and there is an interim order of stay operating, which was granted at the hands of the co- ordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, there is no investigation that has taken place in the case at hand. Whether investigation is necessary or otherwise, the complaint itself would narrate. 9. The complaint in so far as all the accused, namely accused Nos.2 to 12, are all bald and no specific overt acts are indicated to each of the accused. While it comes to the husband, the allegations spring from 08.02.2021 till the date of registration of the complaint or otherwise. The husband is said to have tortured the wife, assaulted the wife and also further abuses that are pointed out clearly. Therefore, there can be no question of interdicting investigation insofar as the husband is concerned, who shall face investigation. Permitting further investigation against the other members of the family would clearly run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8068 CRL.P No. 8021 of 2023 of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM 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? 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 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8068 CRL.P No. 8021 of 2023 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.” 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) - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8068 CRL.P No. 8021 of 2023 “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 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 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8068 CRL.P No. 8021 of 2023 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. 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.’ - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8068 CRL.P No. 8021 of 2023 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 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 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8068 CRL.P No. 8021 of 2023 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 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 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8068 CRL.P No. 8021 of 2023 exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed, albeit in part. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The criminal petition insofar as the petitioner No.1 - husband is concerned, stands dismissed. The investigation against petitioner No.1 - husband in Crime No.64/2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class 2nd Court Shimoga District, Balraj Urs Road, Shimoga shall continue. (iii) The criminal petition in so far as the other petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 12 is concerned, stands allowed. The crime in Crime No.64/2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class 2nd - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8068 CRL.P No. 8021 of 2023 Court Shimoga District, Balraj Urs Road, Shimoga stands quashed qua petitioner Nos.2 to 12. (iv) The observations made in the course of the order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case in respect of the accused No.1 - husband and would not influence the finding in the investigation. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17