- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8219 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SUNIL T. AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O THIMMAIAH. H 2. MAHALAKSHMI @ D. MAHALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O THIMMAIAH H., 3. THIMMAIAH. H AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE HANUMAIAH PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT THUMBADI VILLAGE AND POST KORTAGERE (RURAL) TUMKUR - 572 129 4. RAMYA. T. AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O. AJAY K.S. R/AT KALLASETKUNTE BRAMASANDRA AT POST KORA HOBLI TUMKUR - 572 101 Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 5. SARITHA T N AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O. MOHAN KUMAR K T R/AT CHARKRABAVI KORAMANGALA RAMANAGAR - 562 120 6. LAKSHMISHA T. AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O THIMMAIAH H, R/AT NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, DHARMPURA MAIN ROAD, BHOVI COLONY, HIRIYUR TALUK, BABBURU POST CHITHRADURGA - 577 598 …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. NAGAMANI V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TUMAKURU WOMEN POLICE STATION TUMAKURU REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. CHAITHRA. A. AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS W/O SUNIL T. R/AT BEHIND ASHRAYA HOSPITAL, YALLAPURA, TUMKUR - 572 106 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. MALLIKARJUN B. RYAKHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE ABOVE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.65/2025 OF TUMAKURU WOMEN P.S TUMAKURU, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT TUMKUR FOR O/P/U/S 85,115(2),351(2),352,3(5) OF BNS ACT 2023 AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT 1961. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 6. Respondent No.2 is the complainant are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No. 65 of 2025. 2. Heard Sri.Nagamani V, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents. 3. Before embarking upon the consideration of the issue in the lis, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the parties. Petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 is the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 husband of the complainant, petitioner No.2 is the mother-in- law, petitioner No.3 is the father-in-law, petitioner No.4 is the sister-in-law, petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are the other members of the family. 4. Accused No.1 and the complainant get married in the year 2023. It transpires that the relationship between the accused No.1 and the complainant flounders. On floundering of the relationship, the complainant seeks to register a complaint implicating all six accused, the relationship of whom is described herein above into the web of crime for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of BNS Act, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the in-laws or even distant relatives of the accused No.1 are drawn into the web of proceedings without any rhyme or reason. Therefore, would submit that the proceedings/investigation must not be continued in the case on hand. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - complainant would submit that the allegations galore against all the accused. Therefore, it is for the accused to face investigation in the least. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record. 8. The afore-narrated relationship between the parties are a matter of record, which would not require any reiteration. The entire issue has now triggered from the registration of the complaint. The complaint so registered reads as follows. "ಈ ೕಲಮಡ ಾಸದ ಾನು ಾಸಾದು. ಾಂಕ 11/12/2023 ರಂದು ನನ ಾಹವ ಗುರು  ಯರ "ಶ$ಯದಂ%ೆ 'ೊರಟ*ೆ+ೆ %ಾಲೂಕು ತುಂ-ಾ. *ಾ/ಮದ ಸು"0 12 3ಮ4ಯ5 ರವ+ೊಂ*ೆ 'ೊರಟ*ೆ+ೆಯರುವ ಊ.7*ೆ+ೆ 'ಾ/8 9ಾ:ಯ ಕ;ಾ5ಣ ಮಂಟಪದ ನ>ೆದು. ಮದುೆಯ ನಂತರ ನಮ*ೆ ಒಂದುವ+ೆ ವಷ7ದ Aಾನ5 ಸು"0 ಎಂಬ DೆಣುE ಮಗಳG ಇರು%ಾI ೆ. ಮದುೆಯ ಸಂದಭ7ದ ನನ ಗಂಡ ಮತುI ಅವರ ಮೆಯವರ ಒ%ಾIಯದಂ%ೆ 'ೊರಳ Lೈನು (25*ಾ/ಂ) ಒಂದು ಉಂಗುರ 10 *ಾ/ಂ -ೆ;ೆ -ಾಳGವ ಮತುI ಬOೆP Dಾಗೂ ನನ*ೆ ಎರಡು Q RೆS ಓ;ೆಗಳG ಹಗೂ AಾU (30*ಾ/ಂ) Dಾಗೂ 'ಾಲು Lೈನು Dಾಗೂ ಎರಡು ಉಂಗುರ (15*ಾ/ಂ)Dಾಗೂ ಸುAಾರು (1) ಒಂದು ಲV -ೆ;ೆ -ಾಳGವ ಬOೆPಗಳG Dಾಗೂ 15.00(ಹೈದು ಲV) ಖಚು7 Aಾ. ಮದುೆ Aಾ.ರು%ಾI+ೆ. ೕರುಾ*ೆY ಅಂದ+ೆ ನನ*ೆ DೆಣುE ಜನನಾದ ಂದ, ನನ ಗಂಡ ನನ ಅ%ೆI ಮDಾಲ[\ೕ Dಾಗೂ Aಾವ 3ಮ4ಯ5 ಮತುI ನನ ಾ"ಯ+ಾದ ರಮ5 ಮತುI ಸ ತ ನಮ4*ೆ ದ ದ/ ಬಂ]ೆ. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 ಆದ ಂದ, "ೕನು ಮೆ 'ೆಲಸದವ ಾರು ಎಂದು ಪ/3 "ತ5 Aಾನ_ಕ ಮತುI ]ೈಕಾ ಂRೆ "ೕಡು3Iದರು. Dಾಗೂ ನನ ಗಂಡ 'ೆಲಸ'ೆ Dೋದ ನಂತರ ಾನು 'ೆಲಸ ಮು_ದ ನಂತರ ನನನು ಮೆಯ ಇರ-ೇಕು Dೊರಗ>ೆ Dೋಗ-ಾರದು `ಾರನು Aಾತಾಡ-ಾರದು, ಎಂದು ಮೆಯ ಕೂ. Dಾಕು3Iದರು. U ೋಡ-ಾರದು Dಾಗೂ ನನ ಮದುೆ ನಂದ ತಂ]ೆ %ಾaಯ 9ೊ%ೆ Aಾತಾಡ-ೇ'ೆಂದ+ೆ ಾನು ಏನು Aಾತಾಡ-ೇ'ೆಂದು ನನ ಗಂಡ"*ೆ Dೇಳ-ೇQತುI ಆಗ ಅವರು ನನ ತಂ]ೆ %ಾa*ೆ ಏನು Aಾತಾಡ-ೇ'ೆಂದು 'ೇc ;ೌe _fೕಕg ಆ2 Aಾ. 'ೇವಲ ಎರಡು ":ಷ Aಾತಾಡ-ೇಕು ಎಂದು Dೇc ನನ ಗಂಡ ಮತುI ಅ%ೆI ಪಕದ ಕೂರು3Iದರು. ಾನು ಂ]ೆ;ಾ ಾ ೆ ಸ Dೋಗು%ಾI+ೆ ಎಂಬು]ಾ ನಂh]ೆ. ಾಂಕ 10/2/2025 ರಂದು ನಮ4 ತಂ]ೆ ಮೆಯ ಗೃಹಪ/ೇಶ ಯ;ಾಪರದ ೆರೇ ತುI. ನಮ4 ತಂ]ೆ %ಾaಯವರು ಪ3/'ೆ ಮತುI ಬOೆPಗಳನು ಮೆಯವ+ೆಲ ಗೂ ತಂದು ಕ+ೆದು Dೋದರು ಅ]ೇ ನದಂದು ನನ ಗಂಡ 'ೆಲಸ ಮು_'ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ತVಣ ನಮ4 ಮೆ*ೆ "ಮ4 ತಂ]ೆ %ಾa ಏ'ೆ ಬಂದರು ಎಂದು Dೇc ಜಗಳ Aಾ. Dೊ>ೆದು ಬOೆP ಮತುI ಪ3/'ೆಗಳನು hRಾ.ದರು ನನನು ಕು ತು "ೕನು "ಮ4 ತಂ]ೆ ಮೆ*ೆ Dೋಗುಾಗ ಪ3/'ೆ ಮತುI ಬOೆPಗಳನು %ೆ*ೆದು'ೊಂಡು Dೋಗು ಎಂದು ಅಾಚ5 ಶಬಗcಂದ -ೈದು ಕಳG_ದರು. ಾನು ನನ ತಂ]ೆ %ಾa ಮೆ*ೆ ಬಂದು Dಾಗೂ ನನ ಮಗಳ ಭ ಷ5'ಾ ಅವರು ಏನು Aಾ.ದರು ಸ_'ೊಂಡು Dೋಗು3I]ೆ. ಾಂಕ 03/03/2025 ರಂದು ಾನು ಮೆಯ]ಾಗ ೕಲಂಡ ಎ;ಾರು Rೇ 'ೊಂಡು ನನನು "ೕನು ಸ ಇಲ "ೕನು ಸು"0 9ೊ%ೆ -ಾಳ-ೇ'ೆಂದ+ೆ "ಮ4 ತಂ]ೆ ಮನ*ೆ Dೋ Dೆ1$ನ ವರದ[jೆ`ಾ 5(ಐದು ಲV) ಹಣವನು %ೆ*ೆದು'ೊಂಡು -ಾ ಇಲದ+ೆ ನಮ4 ಮನ*ೆ ಬರ-ೇಡ "ಮ4 ತಂ]ೆಯ ಮೆಯಲlೕ ಇರು ಎಂದು ಅಾಚ5 ಶಬಗcಂದ -ೈಯು53Iದರು. ನನ ಗಂಡ ಸಹ ನನ*ೆ Dೊ>ೆದು Dಾಗೂ ಅ%ೆI Aಾವ ಾ"ಯರು ಇ "ೕನು -ಾಳಲು mೕಗ5ಳಲ ಎಂದು ತಮ4"*ೆ Dೇcೕ'ೊಟುP Dೊ>ೆಸು3Iದರು. "ನ ಮತುI "ನ ಮಗುವನು ಕ+ೆದು'ೊಂಡು ಆLೆ Dೋಗು ಎಂದು nೕ.ಸು3Iದರು. ನಮ4 ತಂ]ೆ %ಾa*ೆ ಷಯ Dೇc ಕ+ೆದು'ೊಂಡು Dೋ ಇಲದದ+ೆ ಇವ+ೆ;ಾ Rೇ 'ೊಂಡು ನನನು Rಾa_hಡು%ಾI+ೆ ಎಂದು 3c_ರು%ೆIೕೆ. ಆಗ ನನ ತಂ]ೆ %ಾa +ಾ3/ ಬಂದು +ಾo ಪಂLಾaI Aಾ. ನನ ಗಂಡ"*ೆ ಬು Dೇc ಬಂರು%ಾI+ೆ ನಂತರ ಾಂಕ 4/3/2025 ರಂದು -ೆc*ೆY ನನ ಗಂಡ ನನ ಅ%ೆI Dಾಗೂ ನನ Aಾವ -ೆc*ೆY ಎದ ತVಣ "ೕನು ಇನು ಬದುQೕಯ ಇನು ಸ3Iಲವ ಎಂದು ಎ;ಾರು Rೇ 'ೊಂಡು ನನ*ೆ ಮನ ಬಂದಂ%ೆ 'ೈಗcಂದ Dೊ>ೆರು%ಾI+ೆ.ನಂತರ ನನ ಗಂಡ ನನನು Dಾಗೂ ನನ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 ಮಗಳನು -ೆc*ೆY ನನ ತಂ]ೆ ಮೆ*ೆ ಕ+ೆದು'ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು "ೕನು ಇನು ಮುಂ]ೆ ನಮ4 ಮೆ*ೆ ಬರ-ಾರದು pೕ2 Aಾಡಕೂಡದು ಎಂದು Dೇc hಟPರು ಆಗ ನಮ4 ತಂ]ೆ %ಾa ಏಕಪf ಈ ೕ3ಯ Aಾಡು3Iೕಯ ಎಂದು 'ೇcದ'ೆ ನಮ4 ತಂ]ೆ %ಾaಯನು ಕುರುತು "ೕವ 1Vಕರು "ಮ4 ಮಗಳನು ಸ `ಾ -ೆ ೆ_ಲ ಎಂದು ನಮ4 ತಂ]ೆ Dಾಗೂ %ಾa ಮುಂ]ೆ ನನ*ೆ ಚಾ ನಮ4 ತಂ]ೆ ಮೆ ಮುಂ]ೆ Dೊ>ೆದರು ತVಣ ನಮ4 ತಂ]ೆ %ಾa Dಾಗೂ ಪ ಚಯRೆI`ಾದ ಲV\ಮ4 ಕ ೕಂ ಅ ಎಂಬುವರು ಗ;ಾOೆ h._ರು%ಾI+ೆ. ನಂತರ ತುಮಕೂ ನ o;ಾ ಆಸf%ೆ/ Dೋ 1Q%ೆq ಪ>ೆದು ಮ ಾ pೕೕ8 rಾjೆ*ೆ ದೂರು "ೕ.ರು%ೆIೕೆ. ಆಗ rಾjೆಯ ನನ ಗಂಡ ನನ Lಾರ Aಾಡ;ಾ ಆತ ಇನು ಮುಂ]ೆ ಆ ೕ3 ನ>ೆದು'ೊಳGsವಲ ಸ `ಾ ನನ Dೆಂಡ3mಂ*ೆ ಸಂRಾರ Aಾ.'ೊಂಡು Dೋಗು%ೆIೆ. ಎಂದು Dೇ ೇ'ೆ "ೕ.ರು%ಾIೆ. Dಾಗೂ rಾjೆaಂದ ಆLೆ Dೋ]ಾಗ ನನನು ಕ+ೆದು "ೕನು ನನ ೕ;ೆ ದೂರು "ೕ.ೕಯ "ನನು 'ೊ;ೆ Aಾಡು%ೆIೕೆ "ಮ4 ತಂ]ೆ %ಾa ಮತುI "ನ ತಮ4ನನು oೕವಂತಾ hಡುವ0ಲ ಎಂಬು]ಾ -ೆದ 'ೆ DಾQರು%ಾIೆ. ಾನು ಇದುವ+ೆ ಗೂ ಅವ"*ೆ Dೆದ 'ೊಂಡು ದೂರು "ೕಡ]ೆ ಸುಮ4"ದು ಈ ನ ತಡಾ ಬಂದು ದೂರನು "ೕಡು3I]ೇೆ. ಆದ ಂದ ೕಲಧಂಡ ನನ ಗಂಡ ಸು"0 ನನ ಅ%ೆI ಮDಾಲ[\ೕ, ಮತುI Aಾವ 3ಮ4ಯ5 Dಾಗೂ ಾ"ಯ+ಾದ ರಮ5, ಸ ತ ಮತುI ಲ[\ೕಶರವರುಗಳ ೕ;ೆ 'ಾನೂನು ೕ3 ಕ/ಮ ಜರುಸ-ೇಕು Dಾಗೂ ನನ ವಡೆಗಳನು 'ೊ._'ೊಡ-ೇ'ೆಂದು ತಮ4 vಾ/ಥ7ೆ." 9. A perusal at the complaint would indicate certain sprinkling overt acts on the part of the accused No.1 - husband. While omnibus statements being made qua the other accused, petitioner No.2 - mother-in-law, petitioner No.3 - the father-in- law, petitioner No.4 - the sister-in-law, petitioner Nos.5 and 6 - the other members of the family. 10. Therefore, if further investigation even is permitted to continue against accused Nos.2 to 6, on the face of it - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 become an abuse of the process of the law and it would run foul of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in plethora of cases. 11. 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 1 (2022) 6 SCC 599 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 : (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.” 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) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 “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 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 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 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.’ 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 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 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 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. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 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 exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.” (Emphasis supplied) - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 12. The Apex Court in the case of MARAM NIRMALA v. STATE OF TELANGANA2, 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 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2913 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 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. 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 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 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 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 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 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. 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) - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 13. In the light of the settled principle of law, that the in-laws and other distant relatives of the husband are being drawn into the web of proceedings by the wife without any rhyme or reason, permitting investigation would undoubtedly become an abuse of the process of the law qua accused Nos.2 to 6. Insofar as the accused No.1 husband is concerned, as observed herein above, there are offences which are a sprinkling few, which would touch upon the ingredients of the offences under Section 85 or inter alia. In that light, while sustaining the investigation against the husband accused No.1, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings qua accused Nos.2 to 6. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R [I] Criminal Petition is allowed-in-part. [II] Proceedings in Cr.No.65/2025 pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, against the husband - accused No.1 stands - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25906 CRL.P No. 8219 of 2025 sustained. The proceedings shall continue against accused No.1. [III] The proceedings in Cr.No.65/2025 pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, against petitioner No.2 - mother-in-law, petitioner No.3 - the father-in-law, petitioner No.4 - the sister-in-law, petitioner Nos.5 and 6 - the other members of the family stand quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10