- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14246 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. ZAREEN TAJ W/O RAHMATHULLA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT D.NO. 16, WHITE PARROT LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, RAJEEV NAGARA MYSURU CITY MANDYA – 570 007. 2. RAHMATHULLA S/O LATE ABDUL JABBAR RESIDING AT D.NO. 16 WHITE PARROT LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, RAJEEV NAGARA MYSURU CITY MANDYA – 570 007. 3. KAFEEL AHAMED S/O RAHMATHULLA RESIDING AT D.NO. 16, WHITE PARROT LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, RAJEEV NAGARA MYSURU CITY MANDYA – 570 007. 4. AKBAR @ AKBAR PASHA Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM RESIDING AT D.NO. 16 WHITE PARROT LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, RAJEEV NAGARA MYSURU CITY MANDYA – 570 007. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY MANDYA WOMEN P S REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE AT HIGH COURT COMPLEX OPP. TO VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. SUMERA SULTANA W/O FAZIL AHMED AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT D.NO.16 WHITE PARROT LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, RAJEEV NAGARA MYSURU CITY – 570 007. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI HARIPRASAD M.B., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO 1.QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 20.03.2024 PRESENT AT ANNEXURE-C, REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.660/2024 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.01/2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 MANDYA WOMEN’S P.S. FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506, 114, 149 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 3, 4 OF D.P ACT PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE ADDL.CIVIIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT MANDYA WHEREIN THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.2 TO 5; 2. QUASH THE COGNIZANCE ORDER DATED 20.04.2024 PASSED IN C.C.NO.660/2024 BY THE HON’BLE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT MANDYA FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SEC.498A, 323, 504, 506, 114, 149 OF IPC AND U/SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT WHEREIN THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.2 TO 5. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 are at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No. 660 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506, 114, 149 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 2. Heard Sri Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri K Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Hariprasad M B, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant. 3. The accused no.1 is the husband of the complainant, he is not before the Court. The petitioners are mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and other in-law of the 2nd respondent/complainant. The accused no.1 and the 2nd respondent/complainant get married on 16-08-2018. The relationship between the two appears to have floundered. On floundering of the said relationship, several proceedings are instituted by the wife against the husband or husband against the wife, as the case would be. One of the proceedings is registration of a crime in Crime No. 1 of 2024 for the afore- quoted offences. Pursuing to the registration of the crime, the police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against all these accused including the husband. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven these petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the allegations against all the petitioners are omnibus, there are no specific overt acts. He would submit that accused nos.4 and 5 in particular do not even reside with the complainant and have nothing to do with the family of the accused no.1 and the complainant. Therefore, they are drawn into the web of these proceedings without any rhyme or reason. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant would however refute the submissions in contending that a perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would indicate clear overt acts attributable to accused nos.1 to 5. He would submit that accused nos.4 and 5, whenever came to the house of the couple, used to harass her for the purpose of demand of dowry, like the mother-in-law and father-in-law, who are staying with the accused No.1 and the complainant. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 contending that it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial, as there are allegations that would touch upon the ingredients of the offences. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts, relationship between accused no.1 and the relationship with the complainant of the protagonists of the lis is a matter of record. The issue springs from registration of the complaint by the 2nd respondent/complainant, the wife of accused no.1. The complaint reads as follows: “ರವೆ, ಸ ಇ ೆಕರವರು, ಮಾ ೕ ಾೆ, ಮಂಡ ಇಂದ, ಸು ೕರಸು!ಾ"ನ $ೋಂ &ಾ'( ಅಹಮ+,,24ವಷ., ಮು/0ಂ ಜ2ಾಂಗ, ಗೃ5, 6ಾಸ ಮ2ೆ ನಂ 16, 6ೈ8 ಾ9ೇ8 !ೇಔ8, 22ೇ ಹಂತ, 9ಾ'ೕ< ನಗರ, ೖಸೂರು /=, >ಾ6ಾಸ ನಂ 2243,12ೇ $ಾ?, ಾಂ@ನಗರ, ಮಂಡ /= ABೈ( ನಂ 9980204691 ಆದ 2ಾನು $ೊಟು ದೂರು. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 ಏ2ೆಂದ9ೆ 2ಾನು ಈ ೕಲHಂಡ Iಾಸದ0 6ಾಸ6ಾJರುKೆ"ೕ2ೆ. ನನL ತಂMೆ ಮಹಮ+, ಅPÀâ, KಾN ಶPೕನKಾQ ಆJರುKಾ"9ೆ. ಇವೆ 2ಾನು 32ೆಯ ಮಗಾJರುKೆ"ೕ2ೆ. ೖಸೂರು 9ಾ'ೕ< ನಗರ 6ಾ/Sಾದ 9ೆಹಮT ಉ!ಾ0 >ಾಗೂ ಜೕ2ಾ KಾQ ರವರ ಮಗ &ಾ'( ಅಹಮ+, ರವರು 2018 2ೇ ಇಸIಯ0 ನನLನುL 2ೋಡಲು ಬಂದು ಮದು6ೆ WಾX$ೊಳZಲು ಒ\]$ೊಂXದು^, ನಮ+ ಮ2ೆಯವರು ಅವರ ಮ2ೆೆ >ೋJ 2ೋX ಒ\]$ೊಂXದು^, ಎರಡೂ ಕುಟುಂಬದವೆ ಒ\]ೆSಾದ ೕ9ೆೆ ನಮ+ ಮ2ೆಯ!ೆ0ೕ `2ಾಂಕ:08.04.2018 ರಂದು ಾ $ಾ ರಸಂ (abcKಾಥ.) ನeೆ`ದು^, abcKಾಥ.ದ ಸಮಯದ0 ಹುಡುಗaೆ 20 ಾ?ಂ ತೂಕದ ಕf"ನ gನLದ hೈನು, ಬiೆಯನುL ಮುಖಂಡ9ಾದ kಾIೕ, >ಾಗೂ ಅlೕಹುmೇ ರವರ ಸಮnಮ $ೊ=ರುKೆ"ೕ6ೆ. ನಂತರ ಮದು6ೆ ಂ`ನ 15 `ವಸದ0 ನಮ+ ಮ2ೆಯ0oೕ ೕಲHಂಡ ಮುಖಂಡರುಗಳ ಸಮnಮ ಹುಡುಗ >ಾಗೂ ಅವರ ತಂMೆ, KಾNಯ $ೈಯ0 ಫa.ಚೆಂದು ಎರಡು ಲnದ ಇಪ]ತು" mಾIರ (2,20000) ರೂಗಳನುL >ಾಗೂ ಬiೆೆಂದು 50 mಾIರ, ಇತ9ೆ mಾWಾJ?ೆಂದು 80 mಾIರ ರೂ ಾN ಒಟು ಮೂರುವ9ೆ ಲn ರೂ ಾNಗಳನುL ವರದsೆSಾJ ನಮ+ ತಂMೆ, KಾN $ೊ=ರುKಾ"9ೆ. ಮದು6ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ0 ನನL ೖ ೕ!ೆ 60ಾ?ಂ ತೂಕದ gನLದ !ಾಂtಸರ, 43 ಾ?ಂ ತೂಕದ gನLದ 2ೆಕ0 ಮತು" >ಾಂJ, 22 ಾ?ಂ ತೂಕದ gನLದ ಬೆಗಳನುL >ಾu `2ಾಂಕ 16.08.2018 ರಂದು ಹುಡುಗ >ಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಮ2ೆಯವರ ಒKಾ"ಯದಂKೆ ೖಸೂನ lಲ ಫಂn>ಾ( ನ0 I6ಾಹವನುL WಾXರುKಾ"9ೆ. I6ಾಹ$ೆH ಸುWಾರು 7 ಲvಷ ರೂ ಾN ಖಚು. ಆJರುತ"Mೆ. I6ಾಹ6ಾದ ನಂತರ 2ಾನು ನನL ಗಂಡನ ಮ2ೆಯ0 ನನL ಗಂಡ &ಾ'( ಅಹಮ+,, ಅKೆ" ಜೕ2ಾKಾQ, Wಾವ 9ೆಹಮTವw!ಾ0 ರವರ kೊKೆ ಸxಲ] `ವಸ ಇದು^, ನಂತರ Bೆಂಗಳyನ0 ನನL ಗಂಡನ ಅಣ{ ಕ|ೕ( ರವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರ kೊKೆ 6ಾಸIMೆ^ವw. 06 fಂಗಳ $ಾಲ hೆ2ಾLJದ^ ನನL ಗಂಡ Kಾನು Wಾಡುf"ದ^ $ೆಲಸವನುL P=ದು^, 2ಾನು P'2ೆ WಾಡBೇಕು, ನನೆ ಹಣದ ಅವಶಕKೆ ಇMೆ, aಮ+ ತಂMೆ ಮದು6ೆಯ ಸಮಯದಲೂ0 2ಾವw aೕs/ದಷು ವರದsೆ ಹಣ $ೊಡಲ0. aೕನು aಮ+ ಮ2ೆಯವಂದ ಹಣವನುL ಇ/$ೊಡು ಎಂದು ಗ!ಾiೆ WಾX, $ೈNಂದ ಹ!ೆ0 Wಾಡುf"ದ^ರು. ನಮ+ }ಾವ ಕ|ೕ(ರವರು ಸಹ aಮ+ ತಂMೆ aನL >ೆಸೆ ಬ9ೆ`ರುವ mೈ8 ಅನುL Wಾ9ಾಟ WಾX, ಹಣ $ೊಡು ಎಂದು ಒKಾ"Nಸುf"ದ^ರು. ಈ IhಾರವನುL ನಮ+ ತಂMೆ, KಾNೆ f~ಸ!ಾJ ನಮ+ ತಂMೆ, KಾN ನಮೆ Bೇ9ೆ ಮ2ೆ WಾX ಪ?Kೇಕ6ಾJ ಇರಲು ಸ>ಾಯ WಾXರುKಾ"9ೆ. ಅ0 2ಾವw ಸುWಾರು ಒಂದು ವಷ. 6ಾಸIದು^, ನಮೆ ಒಂದು ಗಂಡು ಮಗು6ಾJರುKೆ". ಅ0ಯೂ ಸಹ ಗಂಡ $ೆಲಸ$ೆH ಸSಾJ >ೋಗMೇ ನಮ+ ಸಂmಾರವನುL ನಮ+ ತಂMೆ KಾNoೕ ಹಣ $ೊಟು ನeೆಸುf"ದ^ರು. ನಮ+ ತಂMೆ KಾNಯ ಮ2ೆಗೂ ಕಳ•ಸMೆ ಂ/ಸುf"ದ^ರು. ನನL ಗಂಡ ಪMೇ ಪMೇ ಗ!ಾiೆ Wಾಡುf"ದ^ಂದ ಮನ2ೊಂದ 2ಾನು ನನL KಾNಯ ಮ2ೆೆ ಬಂ`ರುKೆ"ೕ2ೆ. ನಂತರ ನನL ತಂMೆ, KಾN >ಾಗೂ ಮುಖಂಡರುಗಾದ kಾIೕ,, ಅlೕ - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 ಹುmೇ ರವರು ನನL ಗಂಡನ ಮ2ೆಯ0 WಾತುಕKೆ WಾX ನನL ಗಂಡ >ಾಗೂ ಮ2ೆಯವೆ ಬು`^ >ೇ~ ನನLನುL ಕಳ•/$ೊ=ರುKಾ"9ೆ. ನಂತರ 2ಾನು ನನL ಗಂಡ, ಅKೆ", Wಾವ ರವರ kೊKೆಯ0 ೖಸೂನ0 6ಾಸIMೆ^. ಆ ಸಮಯದ0 ನಮ+ ಅKೆ", Wಾವ >ಾಗೂ ನನL ಗಂಡ ನಮ+ ತಂMೆ KಾNNಂದ >ಾಗೂ ಆಾೆ€ ಮ2ೆೆ ಬರುf"ದ^ ನನL ಗಂಡನ gಕHಪ] ಅPÀâರವರು ಇವಳ• ಹಣ ತಂದು $ೊಡ`ದ^9ೆ ಮ2ೆ Pಟು KೊಲJ/ ಇಲ0`ದ^9ೆ >ೊeೆದು mಾN/, ಈ g2ಾ(ೆ ಎಷು >ೇ~ದರು $ೇಳ•ವw`ಲ0 ಎಂದು ನನL ಗಂಡaೆ ಕುಮ+ಕುH aೕಡುf"ದ^ರು >ಾಗೂ SಾವwMೇ $ಾರಣಕೂH aನLನುL ಬದುಕಲು Pಡುವw`ಲ0 ಎಂದು Bೆದ$ೆ >ಾuದ^ರು. ನಮ+ ಅKೆ" ನನL ಗಂಡaೆ ಇಲ0 ಸಲ0ದ WಾತುಗಳನುL >ೇ~ ಪ?faತ ಮ2ೆಯ0 ಗ!ಾiೆ WಾXಸುf"ದ^ರು. ಇವರ ಂmೆ ತeೆಯ!ಾರMೇ 2ಾನು ನನL KಾNಯ ಮ2ೆೆ ಬಂ`ರುKೆ"ೕ2ೆ. ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಮುಖಂಡ9ಾದ kಾIೕ,, ಅlೕಹುmೇ ರವರುಗಳ• ಎರಡು ಮೂರು Bಾ 2ಾSಾಪಂhಾNf WಾXದ^ರು ಸಹ ನಮ+ ಸಂmಾರ ಸ >ೋJರುವw`ಲ0. ಆದ^ಂದ >ೆgcನ ವರದsೆಾJ \ೕX/, ನನೆ Mೈಕ6ಾJ, Wಾನ/ಕ6ಾJ ಂmೆ aೕX, ಅ6ಾಚ ಶಬ^ಗ~ಂದ aಂ`/, $ೊ!ೆ Bೆದ$ೆ >ಾuರುವ ನನL ಗಂಡ &ಾ'ೕ( ಅಹಮ+,, ನಮ+ ಅKೆ" ಜೕ2ಾKಾQ, Wಾವ 9ೆಹಮ+Tವw!ಾ0, ನಮ+ }ಾವ ಕ|ೕ( ಅಹಮ+, >ಾಗೂ ನನL ಗಂಡನ gಕHಪ] ಅPÀâ ರವರ ೕ!ೆ ಸೂಕ" $ಾನೂನು ಕ?ಮ ಜರುJಸBೇ$ೆಂದು $ೋ$ೊಳ•ZKೆ"ೕ2ೆ. ನನL ಸಂmಾರ ಸ>ೋಗಬಹುMೆಂದು $ಾ`ದು^, ಕುಟುಂಬದವರ eÉÆvÉ ಚg./ ಈ `ನ ತಡ6ಾJ ಬಂದು ದೂರು aೕXರುKೆ"ೕ2ೆ. `2ಾಂಕ 02.01.2024 ತಮ+ I‚ಾx/ ಸ/-” The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. Summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No. 17 reads as follows: “17. $ೇ/ನ ಸಂsಪ" mಾ9ಾಂಶ ಕಲಂ 498(J), 323, 504, 506, 114 ಕೂಡ 149 ಐ\/ >ಾಗೂ ಕಲಂ 3 & 4 X.\. $ಾo^. ಮಂಡ /=ಯ, 22ೇ $ಾ?, ಾಂ@ನಗರದ 6ಾ/ಗಾದ mಾs-2 >ಾಗೂ mಾs-3 ರವರ ಮಗಾದ mಾs-1 ರವರನುL ಈ Mೋˆಾ9ೋಪಣ ಪತ?ದ $ಾಲಂ ನಂ 12 ರ0 ಕಂಡ ಆ9ೋ\-2 ಮತು" ಆ9ೋ\-3 ರವರ ಮಗ2ಾದ ಆ9ೋ\-1 ರವೆ $ೊಟು ಮದು6ೆ - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 Wಾಡಲು aಶcಯ WಾXದು^, `2ಾಂಕ 08.04.2018 ರಂದು mಾs-2 ರವರ ಮ2ೆಯ0, ಾ $ಾ ರಸಂ (ab+Kಾಥ.) ನeೆ`ದು^, ಈ ಸಮಯದ0, ಆ9ೋ\-1 ಂದ ಆ9ೋ\-3 ರವರ ಒKಾ"ಯದಂKೆ ಆ9ೋ\-1 ರವೆ 20 ಾ?ಂ ತೂಕದ ಕf"ನ gನLದ hೈನು, ಬiೆಯನುL mಾs- 4 ಮತು" 5 ರವರ ಸಮnಮ mಾs-2 ಮತು" mಾs-3 ರವರು $ೊ=ರುKಾ"9ೆ. ನಂತರ ಮದು6ೆಯ ಂ`ನ 15 `ವಸದ0, mಾs-2 ಮತು" mಾs-3 ರವರ ಮ2ೆಯ0oೕ mಾs-4 ಮತು" mಾs-5 ರವರ ಸಮnಮ ಆ9ೋ\-1 ಂದ ಆ9ೋ\-3 ರವರ ಒKಾ"ಯದಂKೆ ಆ9ೋ\-1 ಂದ ಆ9ೋ\-3 ರವರ $ೈಯ0 ಫa.ಚ ೆಂದು ಎರಡು ಲnದ ಇಪ]ತು" mಾIರ (2,20,000/-) ರೂಗಳನುL >ಾಗೂ ಬiೆೆಂದು 50,000/-, ಇತ9ೆ mಾWಾJ?ೆಂದು 80,000/- ರೂ ಾN ಒಟು ಮೂರುವ9ೆ ಲn ರೂ ಾN (3,50,000/-)ಗಳನುL ವರದsೆSಾJ $ೊ=ರುKಾ"9ೆ. ಮದು6ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ0 ಆ9ೋ\-1 ಂದ ಆ9ೋ\-3 ರವರ ಒKಾ"ಯದಂKೆ mಾs-1 ರವರ ೖ ೕ!ೆ 60 ಾ?ಂ ತೂಕದ gನLದ !ಾಂUÀìರ, 43 ಾ?ಂ ತೂಕದ gನLದ 2ೆPÉè ಮತು" >ಾಂJ, 22 ಾ?ಂ ತೂಕದ gನದ ಬೆಗಳನುL >ಾu `2ಾಂಕ 16.08.2018 ರಂದು ಆ9ೋ\-1 ಂದ ಆ9ೋ\-3 ರವರ ಒKಾ"ಯದಂKೆ ೖಸೂನ lಲ ಫಂn£ïºÁ( ನ0, mಾs-1 ರವರನುL ಆ9ೋ\-1 ರವೆ $ೊಟು I6ಾಹ WಾXರುKಾ"9ೆ. I6ಾಹ6ಾದ ನಂತರ mಾs-1 ರವರು ಆ9ೋ\ತರ ಮ2ೆಯ0 ಆ9ೋ\-1 ಂದ ಆ9ೋ\-3 ರವರ kೊKೆ ಸxಲ] `ವಸ ಇದು^, ನಂತರ Bೆಂಗಳyನ0 ಇದ^ ಆ9ೋ\-4 ರವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರ kೊKೆ 6ಾಸIರುKಾ"9ೆ. 06 fಂಗಳ $ಾಲ hೆ2ಾLJದ^ ಆ9ೋ\-1 ರವರು Kಾನು Wಾಡುf"ದ^ $ೆಲಸವನುL P=ದು^, 2ಾನು P'2ೆ WಾಡBೇಕು, ನನೆ ಹಣದ ಅವಶಕKೆ ಇMೆ, aಮ+ ತಂMೆ ಮ2ೆಯವರು 2ಾವw aೕs/ದಷು ವರದsೆ ಹಣ $ೊಡಲ0, aೕನು aಮ+ ಮ2ೆಯವಂದ ಹಣವನುL ಇ/$ೊಂಡು ಎಂದು mಾs-1 ರವರ kೊKೆ ಗ!ಾiೆ WಾX $ೈNಂದ ಹ!ೆ0 WಾXದು^, ಆ9ೋ\-4 ರವರ ಸಹ aಮ+ ತಂMೆ aನL >ೆಸೆ ಬ9ೆ`ರುವ mೈ8 ಅನುL Wಾ9ಾಟ WಾX ಹಣ $ೊಡು ಎಂದು mಾs-1 ರವೆ ಒKಾ"ಯ WಾXರುKಾ"9ೆ. Ihಾರ f~ದ mಾs-2 ಮತು" mಾs-3 ರವರು ಪ?Kೇಕ6ಾJ mಾs-1 ಮತು" ಆ9ೋ\-1 ರವರು 6ಾಸ Wಾಡಲು ಸ>ಾಯ WಾXದು^ ಅ0ಯೂ ಸಹ ಆ9ೋ\-1 ರವರು ಸSಾJ $ೆಲಸ$ೆH >ೋಗMೆ mಾs-1 ರವರ ಸಂmಾರ ನeೆಸಲು mಾs-2 ಮತು" mಾs-3 ರವ9ೇ ಹಣದ ಸ>ಾಯ Wಾಡುf"ದು^ ನಂತರ ಇವರ ಂmೆಯನುL Kಾಳ!ಾರMೇ mಾs-1 ರವರು mಾs-2 ಮತು" mಾs-3 ರವರ ಮ2ೆೆ ಬಂ`ದು^, ನಂತರ mಾs-2 ಂದ mಾs-5 ರವರು ಆ9ೋ\ತರ ಮ2ೆಯ0oೕ WಾತುಕKೆ WಾX ಆ9ೋ\ತೆ fಳ•ವ~$ೆ >ೇ~ದು^ ನಂತರ mಾs-1 ರವರು ಆ9ೋ\-1 ಂದ ಆ9ೋ\-3 ರವರ kೊKೆ ೖಸೂನ0 6ಾಸIದು^, ಆ ಸಮಯದ0 ಆ9ೋ\-1 ಂದ ಆ9ೋ\-3 ರವರು mಾs-1 ರವೆ aಮ+ ತಂMೆ KಾNNಂದ >ೆgcನ ಹಣವನುL ವರದsೆSಾJ ಇ/$ೊಡು Bಾ ಎಂದು ಗ!ಾiೆ WಾX $ೈNಂದ ಹ¯Éè Wಾಡುf"ದು^ ಆ9ೋ\- 2 ಮತು" ಆ9ೋ\-5 ರವರು ಇವಳ• ಹಣ ತಂದು $ೊಡ`ದ^9ೆ ಮ2ೆ Pಟು KೊಲJ/ ಇಲ0`ದ^9ೆ >ೊeೆದು mಾNಸು ಈ g2ಾ( ಎಷು >ೇ~ದರು $ೇಳ•ವw`ಲ0 ಎಂದು ಆ9ೋ\-1 ರವೆ - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 ಕುಮ+ಕುH aೕXದು^ >ಾಗೂ SಾವwMೇ $ಾರಣಕೂH aನLನುL ಬದುಕಲು Pಡುವw`ಲ0, ಎಂದು mಾs-1 ರವೆ Bೆದ$ೆ >ಾuದು^ ಆ9ೋ\-2 ರವರು ಸಹ ಆ9ೋ\-1 ರವೆ mಾs-1 ರವರ ಬೆ€ ಇಲ0 ಸಲ0ದ ZÁX WಾತುಗಳನುL >ೇಳ•f"ದು^ ಈ ಬೆ€ mಾs-2 ಂದ mಾs-5 ರವರು 2ಾSಾಪಂhಾNf WಾX fಳ•ವ~$ೆ >ೇ~ದ^ರು ಸಹ ಆ9ೋ\ಗಳ• ಸ>ೋಗMೆ ಇರುವwದು ತa‰ೆNಂದ >ಾಗೂ mಾsMಾರರ >ೇ~$ೆNಂದ ದೃಢಪ=ರುತ"Mೆ ಆದ^ಂದ ೕಲHಂಡ ಆ9ೋ\ತರ Iರುದ‹ ೕಲHಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ೕKಾ Mೋˆಾ9ೋಪಾ ಪತ? ಶೃತ If the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet are read in tandem, what would unmistakably emerge is, sprinkling allegations of offences against accused nos.2 and 3, while nothing that would touch upon the ingredients against accused nos.4 and 5. The allegations against accused no.2 and 3 are demand of dowry. How, what, when, specific allegations are not indicated, as what is mentioned in the complaint is what was given at the time of marriage, for which the accused no.1 will have to answer. Permitting further proceedings against the petitioners who are the mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother- in-law and the other in-law would become an abuse of the process of the law and run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ARTI MEHTA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH1, wherein the Apex Court holds as follows: 1 2026 SCC Online SC 933 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 “…. …. …. 21. As regards the present appellants, namely, Arti Mehta, Shrivati Bai Dhakad, Manisha Dhakad and Vikram Dhakad, the allegations are essentially omnibus and generalised in nature. In the FIR, the complainant merely states that the husband and the in-laws “started abusing me and would tell me to go and live with my parents” and that the appellants “would demand dowry from me every day and would tell me that if I did not bring dowry, I should go back to my parental home.” Beyond these broad and sweeping assertions, no specific incident, date, overt act or particular role has been attributed individually to any of the appellants. The allegations do not disclose as to which appellant made what demand, on which occasion, in whose presence, or in what manner any specific act constituting cruelty under Section 498A IPC was committed. 22. Significantly, even in the elaborate divorce petition subsequently filed by the complainant/wife, the allegations continue to remain substantially vague insofar as the present appellants are concerned. The detailed allegations of cruelty, harassment and mental trauma overwhelmingly revolve around the conduct of the husband at Sheopur, where admittedly the complainant was residing with him in the government accommodation allotted to him. The complainant herself states in paragraph 2 of the divorce petition that “after some time of marriage, the non-applicant took the applicant to live in his government quarter in Sheopur.” She further reiterates in paragraph 3 that during the second Karva Chauth, “the applicant and the non-applicant lived in the government quarters of Sheopur.” These pleadings clearly indicate that the matrimonial residence of the parties was at Sheopur and not at Shivpuri, where the present appellants were residing. The complainant, however, in the counter affidavit as well as in the written submissions filed before this Court, has attempted to explain the aforesaid position by contending that while she was residing with her husband at Sheopur, the husband along with the present appellants used to harass her - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 for dowry and that whenever the husband left her at the in-laws' house at Shivpuri, the appellants also used to harass her and prevent her from residing peacefully in the matrimonial home. It has further been contended on behalf of the complainant that these aspects are also reflected in the translated divorce petition and the prosecution's story. Even if the aforesaid explanation is accepted at its face value, the allegations against the present appellants nevertheless remain broad, generalised, and bereft of specific particulars. Neither in the FIR nor in the divorce petition nor even in the subsequent pleadings before this Court has the complainant specified any particular date, incident or overt act attributable individually to any of the present appellants which would prima facie constitute cruelty or unlawful demand of dowry within the meaning of Section 498A IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations essentially remain collective assertions that the appellants “used to harass” the complainant or “supported” the husband, without any clear delineation of the precise role allegedly played by each of them. Mere use of omnibus expressions against all family members, in the absence of specific factual assertions, would not by itself justify continuation of criminal proceedings against the present appellants. 23. In fact, the complainant's own pleadings substantially dilute the allegations sought to be levelled against the appellants in the FIR. While the FIR creates an impression of continuous harassment by all in-laws collectively, the divorce petition narrates specific acts, almost entirely concerning the husband. Even the allegation regarding the demand for money is primarily against the husband, wherein the complainant states that “the non-applicant told the applicant that my entire salary is spent on my father's treatment, and now I am unable to bear your expenses. … now bring some money from your parents.” The subsequent allegation that the husband became angry and started abusing and slapping her is also directed solely against him. The appellants are not alleged - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 to have actively participated in any specific demand or act of cruelty. 24. The allegations against the appellant No. 4 - Vikram Dhakad are also of a generalised nature and do not disclose any criminal intent or overt act constituting an offence under Section 498A IPC. In paragraph 6 of the divorce petition, the complainant merely states that Vikram Dhakad remarked that “guests keep coming to our house” and questioned why she was residing at Shivpuri while her husband was staying in Sheopur. Even if the said allegations are accepted at their face value, they merely indicate a domestic disagreement regarding her stay at the matrimonial house and do not amount to cruelty or unlawful dowry demand within the meaning of the penal provisions invoked. 25. Similarly, the allegations against the appellant No. 1 Arti Mehta are confined to assertions that the complainant had informed her regarding the conduct of the husband and that she did not react in the manner expected by the complainant. In paragraph 9 of the divorce petition, the complainant states that “The non-applicant's elder sister Aarti Mehta also came to Sheopur many times. The applicant informed her regarding all types of acts, such as beating and abuse by the non-applicant. No statement was made on the incident told by the applicant.” Mere failure to intervene in a matrimonial dispute between spouses, without any specific allegation of active participation in cruelty or dowry demand, cannot by itself attract criminal liability. 26. It is also pertinent to note that the complainant herself states in paragraph 9 of the divorce petition that she travelled from Sheopur to Shivpuri on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan along with the appellant No. 1 Arti Mehta. The relevant portion states that “the applicant came from Sheopur to Shivpuri on 8.9.2022 on the festival of Raksha Bandhan with the non-applicant's sister.” This circumstance assumes significance because it becomes difficult to readily accept that the complainant would voluntarily travel with the very same appellant whom she alleges to have been continuously harassing and - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 tormenting her for dowry. Though this circumstance by itself may not be determinative, it certainly weakens the allegation of persistent and active cruelty attributed to the appellant No. 1. 27. Further, the complainant's own pleadings demonstrate that there was no continuous shared household with the present the appellants. The repeated references in the divorce petition indicate that the complainant was residing with her husband at Sheopur in his government accommodation and that the visits to Shivpuri were occasional and temporary in nature. Thus, even on the complainant's own showing, the principal matrimonial relationship and the alleged acts of cruelty were centred around the husband at Sheopur. 28. What, therefore, emerges from a cumulative reading of the FIR and the divorce petition is that while there are specific allegations against the husband relating to physical assault, verbal abuse, neglect and suspicious conduct, the allegations against the present appellants remain bald, generalised, and devoid of material particulars. No independent or specific role has been attributed to any of the present appellants so as to disclose prima facie commission of offences under Sections 498A/34 IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations against them appear to be omnibus assertions made on account of their relationship with the husband rather than on the basis of any distinct criminal acts allegedly committed by them. 29. It is a matter of common judicial experience that matrimonial disputes are often accompanied by heightened emotions, strained relationships and deep- seated personal grievances. In such circumstances, complaints alleging cruelty and harassment frequently tend to implicate not only the spouse but also the entire family of the spouse, including those relatives who may have had little or no active role in the matrimonial discord. Quite often, family members who may have remained passive - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 spectators, failed to intervene, or merely sided with one party in a domestic disagreement, are also arrayed as accused. However, mere familial association with the husband, or failure to support the complainant in a marital dispute, cannot by itself constitute a criminal offence in the absence of specific allegations disclosing active participation in acts amounting to cruelty, harassment or unlawful demand of dowry. 30. It must also be borne in mind that when matrimonial relationships deteriorate and bitterness sets in, there is a natural tendency for allegations to be amplified or broadly worded out of anger, frustration or emotional distress. While the anguish of a complainant in a failed marriage cannot be lightly disregarded, equally, criminal law cannot be permitted to be set in motion against every relative of the husband merely on the basis of generalised and omnibus allegations lacking a specific factual foundation. Courts, therefore, are required to exercise greater caution and carefully scrutinise whether the allegations genuinely disclose the commission of cognizable offences against each accused individually, lest the criminal process itself becomes a tool of harassment and misuse. …. …. …. 34. Insofar as the present appellants are concerned, the allegations in the DV complaint remain broadly worded and largely collective in nature. The complainant states that due to refusal to bring money from her parental home, “my husband and in-laws … used to get angry with me. In this way they started torturing me physically and mentally.” However, beyond the use of such omnibus expressions, the complaint does not disclose any specific incident, date, act or conduct individually attributable to any of the appellants which would constitute “domestic violence” within the meaning of the DV Act. 35. Even the allegations concerning the complainant's brother-in-law, namely, Vikram Dhakad - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 (Appellant No. 4), are essentially in the nature of statements allegedly advising the complainant regarding her matrimonial life. The complaint states that Vikram Dhakad questioned why the complainant was staying at Shivpuri while the husband was residing at Sheopur and allegedly told her that “you bring money from your maternal home as per our demand and either stay in Sheopur or stay in your maternal home in Guna.” Thereafter, it is alleged that Vikram Dhakad, along with Manisha Dhakad and Ganesh Dhakad, did not permit her to continue residing at Shivpuri. Even if these allegations are accepted at their face value, they do not disclose any specific act of physical violence, criminal intimidation or overt conduct of such nature as would independently attract criminal liability under the provisions of the DV Act. 36. Similarly, the allegations against the complainant's mother-in-law, namely, Shrivati Bai Dhakad (Appellant No. 2) and the wife of the complainant's brother-in-law, namely, Manisha Dhakad (Appellant No. 3), are confined to broad assertions that “they used to insult me on small matters and demand money.” The complaint is conspicuously silent regarding the particulars of such alleged demands, the time and place where such incidents occurred, or the manner in which such demands were allegedly made. General allegations of “insult” or “harassment” without supporting particulars cannot by themselves form the basis for continuation of criminal proceedings. 37. As regards the complainant's sister-in-law Arti Mehta (Appellant No. 1), the allegation is essentially that when the complainant informed her about the husband's conduct, she allegedly scolded the complainant and advised her to remain quiet and fulfil the family's demands. The relevant allegation reads that “I told his sister Aarti Mehta about his activities many times, then she scolded me and said that you should keep quiet, otherwise it will not be good.” The allegation, even if accepted in entirety, merely suggests that appellant No. 1 sided with her brother in the matrimonial dispute. Mere failure to support the complainant, or advising her to continue in the matrimonial relationship, without any further overt act, would not ipso facto amount to - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 domestic violence so as to justify criminal prosecution. …. …. …. 39. What ultimately emerges from a cumulative reading of the DV complaint is that while the complainant has narrated several detailed allegations concerning the husband's conduct and the strained matrimonial relationship between the spouses, the allegations against the present appellants remain generalised and derivative in character. The complaint does not disclose any specific or direct act individually attributable to the appellants constituting domestic violence, physical abuse, verbal abuse, emotional abuse or economic abuse within the meaning of the DV Act. The allegations against them are essentially that they supported the husband, failed to intervene in the matrimonial dispute, or asked the complainant to adjust to the situation. Such omnibus and broadly worded allegations, in the absence of clear particulars and specific overt acts, would not justify continuation of proceedings against the present appellants. 40. We have also taken note of the fact that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the marriage between the complainant and her husband already stood dissolved by a decree passed by the competent Family Court. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings under the DV Act qua the present appellants, in the absence of specific and substantiated allegations against them as of now, would serve no useful purpose. It is, however, clarified that the complainant would be at liberty to avail such remedies against the husband as may be permissible to her in accordance with law. 41. It is further required to be stated that the invocation of the criminal process is not a matter of course. The coercive machinery of criminal law carries serious civil and personal consequences and, therefore, can be legitimately set in motion only where the allegations disclose specific acts constituting offences punishable under the penal - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 law. This principle assumes even greater significance in cases arising out of matrimonial and domestic discord. Family relationships are founded upon emotional bonds, mutual trust, affection and shared responsibilities, and cannot be viewed through the same lens as ordinary commercial, civil disputes or criminal cases. It is not uncommon that when matrimonial relationships deteriorate, allegations are made in the heat of emotional turmoil and bitterness, often resulting in the entire family of the spouse being drawn into criminal litigation. However, criminal law cannot be permitted to become an instrument for venting personal grievances or settling familial scores in the absence of clear, specific and legally sustainable allegations. Courts must therefore exercise a heightened degree of caution and judicial scrutiny before permitting criminal prosecution against relatives who are sought to be implicated merely by virtue of their relationship with the spouse. 42. At the same time, this Court is equally conscious of the reality that genuine cases of cruelty and domestic violence do occur within the confines of the matrimonial home and often remain concealed from public gaze. Acts of emotional, verbal, economic or physical abuse within the domestic sphere may not always leave behind readily available evidence or independent witnesses, and the absence of such evidence at the threshold cannot by itself be a ground to disbelieve a victim. It is precisely to address this social evil that legislations such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the penal provisions relating to cruelty and dowry harassment have been enacted with wide amplitude and protective intent. The object of such statutes is to ensure meaningful legal protection to women subjected to domestic abuse and harassment within the matrimonial home. 43. However, while safeguarding the rights and dignity of victims of domestic violence remains of paramount importance, courts are simultaneously required to ensure that the rigours of criminal law are not indiscriminately extended to every member of the family without a clear factual foundation. In - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 prosecutions arising out of matrimonial disputes, the allegations against each accused must be specific, distinct and supported by prima facie material indicating active involvement in the alleged acts of cruelty, harassment or unlawful demand of dowry. Mere allegations that family members “supported” the husband, failed to intervene, or advised the complainant to adjust in the matrimonial relationship, without anything further, would not ipso facto attract criminal liability. There may indeed be situations where certain relatives remain passive spectators or fail to come to the aid of the complainant; however, such conduct, though morally questionable, cannot automatically be elevated to the status of criminal culpability unless the surrounding circumstances clearly disclose their active complicity or participation in the alleged offences. 44. It must therefore be emphasised that each case arising out of matrimonial discord or allegations of domestic violence must necessarily turn on its own peculiar facts and the nature of allegations levelled against the accused concerned. The observations made herein should not be construed to mean that relatives of the husband can never be prosecuted under the relevant penal provisions. Where the material on record discloses specific overt acts, active participation, or direct involvement in perpetrating cruelty, harassment or domestic violence, such relatives would undoubtedly be liable to face prosecution in accordance with the law. What the Court is required to carefully examine is whether the allegations are genuine, specific and supported by foundational facts, or whether they are merely a consequence of matrimonial acrimony resulting in sweeping and omnibus implication of all family members. In the absence of such specific allegations and prima facie material, continuation of criminal proceedings against such relatives would amount to abuse of the process of law. 45. Having given our anxious consideration to the allegations contained in the FIR, the complaint under the DV Act, the pleadings exchanged between the parties in the matrimonial proceedings and the material placed on - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 record, we find that the substratum of the allegations primarily concerns the matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband. The allegations relating to physical assault, abusive conduct, emotional neglect, suspicion regarding extramarital relationship, threats, restriction on movement and denial of marital companionship are overwhelmingly directed against the husband. Insofar as the present appellants are concerned, the allegations remain generalised, omnibus and lacking in material particulars. As discussed hereinabove, neither the FIR nor the DV complaint nor even the subsequent pleadings before the Family Court disclose any specific overt act individually attributable to the present appellants so as to prima facie constitute offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act or the provisions of the DV Act. The allegations against the appellants essentially proceed on broad assertions that they “supported” the husband, “used to harass” the complainant, or advised her to either adjust with the husband or return to her parental home. However, no distinct incident, date, specific demand, act of physical cruelty, unlawful intimidation or active participation in the alleged harassment has been clearly attributed to any of the appellants individually. 46. Though their behaviour as projected in the complaint appear to be reproachable otherwise, yet these may not be sufficient to attract criminal liabilities. Permitting the proceedings to continue against the appellants in the absence of specific and legally sustainable allegations would amount to an abuse of the process of law.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the facts obtaining in the case at hand being completely akin to what the Apex Court holds in the judgment quoted supra, permitting further proceedings would become an - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29679 CRL.P No. 14246 of 2024 abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.660 of 2024 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya stand quashed. (iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of these petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and would not become applicable or influence or bind the concerned Court qua the accused no.1/the husband of the complainant. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30