- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 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. 6412 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KARTHIKEYAN SUNDARAM, SON OF SUNDARAM, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14, 3RD CROSS, MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT, ADUGODI, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU – 560 030. 2. SMT. SAVITHRI SUNDARAM, WIFE OF SUNDARAM, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14, 3RD CROSS, MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT, ADUGODI, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU – 560 030. 3. SRI SUNDARAM, SON OF LATE ANGUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14, 3RD CROSS, MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT, ADUGODI, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU – 560 030. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI B.N.SURESH BABU, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMENS P.S, BENGALURU – 560 006, REPRESENTED BY LEARNED HCGP. 2. SMT. JEEVITHA KARTHIKEYAN, WIFE OF S.KARTHIKEYAN (NOW DIVORCED), AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.46, 4TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR BALAJI KALYANA MANTAPA, BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI B.N.ANJAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.22590/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX A.C.J.M, BENGALURU, IN RESPECT OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners-accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.22590/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code inter alia and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Heard Sri.B.N.Suresh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.B.N.Anjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: 3.1. The petitioner No.1/accused No.1 gets married to the complainant on 07.10.2006. From the wedlock, the couple have a child. It transpires that the relationship between the two began to sour and reached an irretrievable state owing to which - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 the complainant registers a complaint which becomes a crime in Crime No.44/2014. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code only and not the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. It transpires that the respondent No.2 then on 06.04.2017 files a petition for divorce in M.C.No.1845/2017. The filing of the charge sheet and the continuation of the proceedings is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that there is nothing against these petitioners that can become the offence under Section 498A of the IPC or otherwise. The complaint nor the charge sheet indicate any demand of dowry or cruelty meted out against the complainant in-furtherance of demand of dowry. Learned counsel would further contend that the wife started living separately from the husband long before the registration of the crime and therefore, the proceedings must not be obliterated. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 Learned counsel appearing for the complainant would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that the police after investigation have filed a charge sheet and it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial . A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would indicate that the offences are met and therefore, this Court must not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Learned HCGP would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts link in the chain of events and the dates, are not in dispute. The two i.e., accused and complainant get married on 07.10.2006. The relationship turns sour. On 11.11.2014, a complaint comes to be registered by respondent No.2-complainant on certain harassment meted out by the husband towards demand of dowry and as also by the mother-in-law and the father-in-law. Since the entire issue has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the same: “FROM Jeevitha Karthikeyan W/o Karthyeyan Sundaram Age: 30 yr #14, 3rd CROSSs, Adugodi Bengaluru Ph: 9718631051 TO, POLICE INSPECTOR ADUGODI POLICE STATION BANGAIURU. SUB: Harassment by my husband (Karthikeyan Sundaram) & mother in law (Savitha) Respected. Sir, I am residing above address from past 10 days I am working. I am working at, CECEDIN Executive Assistant & my salary 8 Lakhs p.a. My Husband was Ex Orocle employe presently jobless. From 2002 We was in love when I was staying with my parents at bsk Bangalore. Person namely Karthikeyan Sundaram from Siddapura area later on 7 October 2006 got registered marriage in Jayanagar register office without my parents knowledge. After marriage I was staying with my husband Karthikeyan Sundaram and in law. In 2009 we were blessed with guhan k. Initially I was happy with my in laws later they started harassment to me both physically and mentally for my salary/ income from my job. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 Whenever we had a fight our persons and friends used to come and settle the issues/problems. Last 10 days back I shifted my house to the mentioned address at adugodi. From past one week our fight with husband and in law has gone up which is the intolerable. On 09-11-2014 Around my husband karthikeyan sundaram & Mother in law Savitha started beating me with a bat (cricket) both started beating me very badly and threatened to kill me. As I was afraid I ran away from my house with my son Guhan to Ulsoor gate women police station. as I was not satisfied with that station I took my brother SK Sundar and father's help k A Sundar and went to adugodi police station for a complaint. I am also scared that my cheques from HSBC Bank and SBI Bank both the blank check which is signed by me is also been under my husband custody which he uses to get or avail loans from various banks financials with my blank cheques without my permission or knowledge had taken loans for more than 6 lakhs or 3 lakhs which I still don't know. For the same I had to go to the court once in July 2014 similar cases are histories are there which will be explained in court. kindly I request you to take a proper action against my husband Karthikeyan and mother in law Savita on harassment and threatening to kill me also for acquiring all my income till date. Thanking you Your sincerely Sd/- 10.11.2014.” The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. A summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column 17 reads as follows: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 “ಾ-1 ರವರು ಾಗೂ ಎ1 ಆೋಯು ಪರಸರ ೕ ಜಯನಗರದ ೆೇಷ! ಕ#ೇ$ಯ%& '£ÁAPÀ:06:07/10/2006 ರಂದು $ಾ) ಮದು+ೆ,ಾ-ದು., ಮದು/ೆಯ ನಂತರದ%& ಎ1, ಎ2, ಎ3 ಆೋಗಳ 2ೊ3ೆ +ಾಸ+ಾ-ರು+ಾಗ, ಎ1, ಎ2, ಎ3 ಆೋಗಳ4 ಪ56 ಸಂಬಳದ ಹಣವನು: 3ೆ;ೆದು <ೊಡುವಂ3ೆ ಾ 1ರವ$;ೆ >ಾನಕ+ಾ- ಾಗೂ ?ೈAತ+ಾ- Bರುಕುಳ CೕDರು3ಾEೆ. ನಂತರ ಾ 1ರವರು ಎ1, ಎ2, ಎ3 ಆೋಗಳ 2ೊ3ೆ ನಂ. 14, 3/ೇ <ಾF, ಮುCಯಪ Gೇ ಔI ಆಡು;ೊD, JೆಂಗಳKರು ಇ%& Jೇೆ ಮ/ೆಯನು: >ಾD +ಾಸ+ಾ-ರು+ಾಗ ಎ1 ಮತುE ಎ2 ಆೋಗಳ4 MಕNಪOಟQ Rಷಯ<ೆN ಜಗಳ 3ೆ;ೆದು ಾ1 ರವ$;ೆ <ೈಗSಂದ ೊTೆದು ಾUಸುವO?ಾ- Jೆದ$<ೆ JಾBದ.ಲ&?ೆ, ಎ1 ಆೋಯು ಾ 1ರವರ JಾWಂX YೆXಗಳ ZೕGೆ ಬಲವಂತ+ಾ- ಸA >ಾD<ೊಂಡು ಾ 1ರವ$;ೆ Sಯದಂ3ೆ ಾಲವನು: ಪTೆದು <ೊಂಡು >ಾನಕ+ಾ- ಾಗೂ ?ೈAಕ+ಾ- Bರುಕುಳ CೕDರುವOದು ತC[ೆUಂದ ಧೃಡಪ^QರುತE?ೆ. ಆದ.$ಂದ ZೕಲNಂಡ ಕಲಂ $ೕ3ಾW ಆೋ¦ಗಳ Rರುದ_ ?ೋ`ಾೋಪaೆ ಪ^Qಯನು: ಸ%&ರುತE?ೆ. ^ಪb: ಾcಾdeಾರಗಳ4 ಲಭWRಲ&ದ <ಾರಣ ಕಲಂ. 323, 324 IPC ºÁUÀÆ 3&4 D.P Act PÀ®Aನು: <ೈ gಡGಾ-?ೆ.” The complaint and the summary of the charge sheet would not indicate even an iota of offence of demand of dowry and cruelty meted out on such demand by accused Nos.2 and 3 - mother- in-law and father-in-law. Therefore, if further proceedings are permitted to continue against the mother-in-law and father-in- law in particular, it would run foul of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in plethora of cases. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 8. The Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR1, 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 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 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 1 (2022) 6 SCC 599 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 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) “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. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 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 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 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 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.’ 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 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 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 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 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 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) 9. The Apex Court in the case of DARA LAKSHMI NARAYANA v. STATE OF TELANGANA2, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 20. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by Respondent 2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that Appellant 1 harassed her and that Appellants 2 to 6 instigated him to do so, Respondent 2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged 22024 SCC OnLine SC 3682 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. 21. Further, the record reveals that Respondent 2 on 3-10-2021 left the matrimonial house leading Appellant 1 to file a police complaint on 5-10-2021. When the police officials traced her, Respondent 2 addressed a letter dated 11-11-2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting to close the complaint made by Appellant 1. In the said letter, Respondent 2 admitted that she left her matrimonial house after quarrelling with Appellant 1 as she was talking to a person by name Govindan over the phone for the past ten days continuously. She further admitted that Appellant 1 was taking good care of her. She also stated that she will not engage in such actions in future. Despite that, in 2021 itself, Respondent 2 once again left the matrimonial house leaving Appellant 1 and also her minor children. 22. Losing hope in the marriage, Appellant 1 issued a legal notice to Respondent 1 seeking divorce by mutual consent on 13-12-2021. Instead of responding to the said legal notice issued by Appellant 1, Respondent 2 lodged the present FIR No. 82 of 2022 on 1-2-2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda under Section 498- AIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act. 23. Given the facts of this case and in view of the timing and context of the FIR, we find that Respondent 2 left the matrimonial house on 3-10-2021 after quarrelling with Appellant 1 with respect to her interactions with a third person in their marriage. Later she came back to her matrimonial house assuring to have a cordial relationship with Appellant 1. However, she again left the matrimonial house. When Appellant 1 issued a legal notice seeking divorce on 13-12-2021, the present FIR came to be lodged on 1-2-2022 by Respondent 2. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the FIR filed by Respondent 2 is not a genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with Appellant 1 and his family members. 24. The learned counsel for Respondent 1 State contended that a prima facie case was made out against the appellants for harassing Respondent 2 and demanding dowry from her. However, we observe that the allegations - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 made by Respondent 2 in the FIR seem to be motivated by a desire for retribution rather than a legitimate grievance. Further, the allegations attributed against the appellants herein are vague and omnibus. 25. Respondent 2 has not contested the present case either before the High Court or this Court. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Respondent 2 has not only deserted Appellant 1 but has also abandoned her two children as well, who are now in the care and custody of Appellant 1. The counsel for the appellants has specifically submitted that Respondent 2 has shown no inclination to re-establish any relationship with her children. 26. Insofar as Appellants 2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against Appellants 2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate Appellant 1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple, namely, Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 and their children. Appellants 2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellants 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur, respectively. 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 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 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. 28. In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant and his wife i.e. the second respondent herein resided at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where he was working in Southern Railways. They were married in the year 2015 and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the second respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore, it cannot be believed that there was any harassment for dowry during the said period or that there was any matrimonial discord. Further, the second respondent in response to the missing complaint filed by the first appellant herein on 5- 10-2021 addressed a letter dated 11-11-2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting for closure of the said complaint as she had stated that she had left the matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a quarrel with Appellant 1 because of one Govindan with whom the second respondent was in contact over telephone for a period of ten days. She had also admitted that she would not repeat such acts in future. In the above conspectus of facts, we find that the allegations of the second respondent against the appellants herein are too far-fetched and are not believable. 29. We find that the High Court noted that there were also allegations against Respondent 2 and matrimonial disputes are pending between the parties. Therefore, the High Court came to the conclusion that custodial interrogation of the appellants was not necessary and protected the personal liberty of the appellants directing the investigating officer not to arrest the appellants till the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge- sheet. Albeit the said findings and observations, the High Court ultimately refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellants. 30. The inclusion of Section 498-AIPC 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 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 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-AIPC 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 hisfamily in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. 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-AIPC 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-AIPC 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. 32. In the above context, this Court 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] observed as follows : (SCC p. 698, para 12) “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes 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 - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 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.” 33. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives 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 complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 10. The Apex Court in the case of MARAM NIRMALA v. STATE OF TELANGANA3, 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 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 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2913 - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 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. 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 - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. xxx 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. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 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) 11. A perusal at the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet would prima facie indicate the offences against the petitioner No.1. It is not a case where the divorce proceedings are initiated by the husband and the wife files the proceedings under Section 498A.The divorce proceedings are instituted by the complainant herself long after the filing of the complaint. A perusal at the complaint or summary of the - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 charge sheet would indicate the offences against the husband of meeting out certain cruelty on the alleged demand of dowry. Therefore, it is for the petitioner-husband to come out clean in a full blown trial. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R [I] Criminal Petition is allowed-in-part. [II] Proceedings in C.C.No.22590/2015 pending before the XXXIX ACJM, Bengaluru, against the husband- accused No.1 stands sustained. The proceedings shall continue against accused No.1. [III] The proceedings in C.C.No.22590/2015 pending before the XXXIX ACJM, Bengaluru, against accused Nos.2 and 3 - mother-in-law and father-in-law stand quashed. [IV] Since the matter is pending from 2014, I deem it appropriate to infuse finality to the proceedings with a direction to the concerned Court to dispose the proceedings within an outer limit of six months from - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7850 CRL.P No. 6412 of 2023 the date of receipt of the copy of this order, if not earlier, in accordance with law. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18