- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32584 WP No. 25572 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 25572 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR. DEEPAK. N. S. AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. N. S. SHEKAR, 2. MR. SHEKAR. N. S. AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. LATE N. C. SOMEGOWDA, 3. MRS. UMA. B. K. AGE 55 YEARS, W/O. N. S. SHEKHAR, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF NELE BUILDING, KUVEMPU NAGARA, KOTE CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. 4. MR. DEEKSHITH N.S. AGED 26 YEARS, S/O N.S. SHEKAR, R/O. HOUSE NO. 50/3, 3RD FLOOR, 6TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT, DODDA BOMMASANDRA, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 097. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32584 WP No. 25572 of 2023 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIKKAMAGALURU WOMEN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. AISHWARYA S.M. AGED 26 YEARS, W/O. DEEPAK, R/AT NO. E-375, 04 TH FACE, CDA LAYOUT KALYANA NAGARA, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. N. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.111/2023 DTD 25.09.2023 OF CHIKKAMAGALURU WOMEN POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 498A OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 VIDE ANENXURE-A PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32584 WP No. 25572 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 are at the doors of this Court calling in question registration of a crime in crime No.111/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Heard Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri. Venkatesh Somareddi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. N. Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Before entering upon the merit of the matter, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the protagonists of the lis. The first petitioner is the husband of the second respondent/complainant. Therefore, he is accused No.1. The others are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the second respondent/complainant. The relationship between accused No.1 and the second respondent/complainant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32584 WP No. 25572 of 2023 turns sour and several proceedings are initiated against the complainant or complainant against accused No.1 or members of the family. One such proceeding is the impugned crime in crime No.111/2023 for the afore-quoted offences. Filing of the registration of the crime has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 4. An interim order is granted only insofar as petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4. The proceedings against accused No.1/husband is said to be continuing and is at the stage of evidence. In the light of the entire issue getting triggered from registration of the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows: "
ೆ: ಾಾಾಗಳ, ಮ ಾ ೕೕ ಾೆ, ಕಮಗಳರು. ಇಂಾ: ಐಶಯ ಎ.ಎಂ. ೋಂ #ೕಪ% ಎ&.ಎ. '& (ಾರು) ಎ.ಎಂ, ನಂ.ಈ-375, 4,ೇ ಹಂತ, /.0.ಎ.1ೇಔ3, ಕ1ಾ4ಣನಗರ, ಕಮಗಳರು. 9902845799 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32584 WP No. 25572 of 2023 (ಾನ46ೇ, 7ಷಯ: ನನ9 ಗಂಡ,ಾದ #ೕಪ% ಎ&.ಎ. <ಾಗೂ ಅವರ ತಂೆ-?ಾ@, ತಮAರವರುಗಳ ೆಲಸದDರುವEಾF ನಂ'/, Gೕಸ (ಾ0 ಮದುHೆ (ಾ0ೊಂಡು <ೆIನ ವರದJೆ
ಾF (ಾನ/ಕ, ೈ ಕHಾF ಂLೆ Mೕ0 ಹಣಾF Lಾಯು?ೆNೕ,ೆಂದು OಾD%PೕQ (ಾಡು)Nರುವ ಬ
ೆS. #,ಾಂಕ 07-05-2023ರಂದು ಕಮಗಳನ
ಾಯ)T ಕ1ಾ4ಣ ಮಂಟಪದD ನನ9 ತಂೆಯವರು ಅದೂVWಾF ಸು(ಾರು ರೂ.25,00,000/-#ಂದ ರೂ.30,00,000/- ಗಳಷುX ಖಚು (ಾ0 ಮದುHೆ (ಾ0ೊಂ0ೊಂ0ದುV, ನಂತರ ಮದುHೆ ಪ[ವ ದD #,ಾಂಕ 06/11/2022ರD ಕಮಗಳರು Hಾ/ ',ೆ1ೆ MHಾಸ' ಕುHೆಂಪEನಗರ, ೋ\ೆ, ]ೇಖ^ ಎ.ಎ&. ಮತುN _Tೕಮ) ಉ(ಾ]ೇಖ^ ಇವರ ಮಗ #ೕಪ% ಎ&.ಎ.ರವರು ಇಂaMಯ^, Oೆಂಗಳನ ಎ%b (ಾ%b ಐ.'./. \ೆ% cಾd ನD ೆಲಸದDಾV,ೆಂದು <ೇe ರೂ.80,000/- ಸಂಬಳ ಎಂದು ಹುಡುFಯನು9 ,ೋಡಲು ಬಂಾಗ ಸುಳf (ಾ ) Mೕ0 ನಂ'/ದುV, ನಂತರ #,ಾಂಕ 19-03- 2023ರಂದು ಕಮಗಳರು ನಗರ, ಕ1ಾ4ಣ ನಗರದ ಗಣಪ) ೇವLಾgನದD M_I?ಾಥ ವನು9 ಸು(ಾರು 3,00,000/- ಖಚು (ಾ0ೊiXದುV, ನಂತರ P0ಕQ ಖಚು ಇೆ ಎಂದು ರೂ.50,000/- ಹಣವನು9 ಪjೆದು ಸುಳfಗಳನು9 <ೇe, ನನ9ನು9 ನಂ'/, ನM9ಂದ #,ಾಂಕ 19/11/2022ಂದ 0Lೆಂಬ^ 04-01-2023ರವ6ೆ
ೆ ಹಂತಹಂತHಾF ನನ9 <ೆಸನD HೈಯುdNಕ Lಾಲವನು9 (ಾಡುವಂ?ೆ cೆTೕರೆ Mೕ0 <ೆk.0.ಎl./. Oಾ4ಂdನD ರೂ.9,00,000/- 1ೋ& (ಾ0/ೊಂಡು ಹಣವನು9 ಪjೆದುೊಂ0ಾV,ೆ. ಮದುHೆ #,ಾಂಕ ಅಂದ6ೆ 07-05-2023ರಂದು ನನ9 ತಂೆಯವರು ನನ9 ಮುಂ#ನ aೕವನ mೆ,ಾ9Fರ1ೆಂದು 13
ಾTಂ
ೋQn mೈ&, 23
ಾTಂ OೆTೕ1ೆ3, 20
ಾTಂ mೈ& ರೂ.7,00,000/- ವರದJೆ Mೕ0 ಮದುHೆ (ಾ0ೊiXದುV, ಮದುHೆ ನಂತರ ನನ9 ಗಂಡನ ಮ,ೆWಾದ ಕಮಗಳರು ಕುHೆಂಪEನಗರ ೋ\ೆಯDನ ಮ,ೆ
ೆ ಕ6ೆದುೊಂಡು <ೋF ಸಲo #ನಗಳ ಾಲ mೆ,ಾ9F ,ೋ0ೊಂಡು, ನನ
ೆ ಸಲo ನಂ'ೆ ಬರುವಂ?ೆ (ಾ0 <ೆIನ ವರದJೆ ತರಲು ಪT)Mತ4 dರುಕುಳ ೊಡಲು ಶುರು (ಾ0ದುV, ನನ9 (ಾವ, ]ೇಖ^, ಅ?ೆN ಉ(ಾ]ೇಖ^ ಮತುN ನನ9 ಗಂಡನ ತಮA,ಾದ #ೕJp ಎ&.ಎ.ರವರುಗಳ ವರದJೆ
ಾF dರುಕುಳ Mೕ0ದುV, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32584 WP No. 25572 of 2023 ಪEನ: ನನ9 ತಂೆಯವರು ನನ9 aೕವನ mೆ,ಾ9Fರ1ೆಂದು ಪEನ: ರೂ.5,00,000/- ಗಳನು9 Mೕ0ರು?ಾN6ೆ. ಇqಾXದರೂ ಇವರುಗೆಲDರ ಕುಮAdMಂದ ನನ
ೆ ಪT)#ನ ನನ
ೆ ಆತAಹ?ೆ4
ೆ ಸಂಬಂ/ದ 70sೕಗಳನು9 ?ೋಸುವEದು, LಾಯುವEಾF ಭಯ ಪ0ಸುವEದು, OಾD%PೕQ (ಾ0 ಹಣ ತರುವಂ?ೆ uೕ0ಸುವEದು, ನನ
ೆ ೈ ಕ, (ಾನ/ಕ ಂLೆ (ಾ0, ನನ
ೆ ೆಲಸದDರುವEಾF ನಂ'/, Gೕಸ(ಾ0, ಆತAಹ?ೆ4 (ಾ0ೊಳfವEಾF ಭಯ ಉಂಟು(ಾ0 <ೆIನ ವರದJೆ ತರುವಂ?ೆ ಂLೆ Mೕಡು)Nರುವ ನನ9 ಗಂಡ #ೕಪ% <ಾಗೂ ಅವರ ತಂೆ- ?ಾ@, ತಮA ಇವರುಗಳ Pೕ1ೆ ಾನೂನು ೕ)ಯ ಕTಮ ಜರುFಸOೇಾF ೇeೊಳf?ೆNೕ,ೆ." A perusal at the complaint would indicate all the offences are against the husband/accused No.1 and not even a sprinkling few that would become the ingredients of the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is against the other members of the family i.e., father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. 5. In the light of no ingredient of those offences being found against these petitioners, further proceedings, if permitted to continue, would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in (2022) SCC online SC 162. 6. The Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR (supra), wherein it has held as follows: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32584 WP No. 25572 of 2023 “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 in-laws Appellants 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 498A of IPC 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 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2018) 10 SCC 472, has observed:- “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 the Act46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A 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. It is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32584 WP No. 25572 of 2023 a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under 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 visualized. 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 Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273), it was also observed:- “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 a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand- fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 14. Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667, it has also been observed:- “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498AIPC 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32584 WP No. 25572 of 2023 are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber 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 498Aas 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 fiber, peace and tranquility 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 visualized 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 husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32584 WP No. 25572 of 2023 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 scrutinized 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 amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 15. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 741, it was observed:- “21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Raovs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 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: “there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32584 WP No. 25572 of 2023 suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in 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 reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the 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. The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452, it was also observed that:- “6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial dispute sand 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 above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section498A IPC 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 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32584 WP No. 25572 of 2023 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 01.04.19, 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 No. 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 Ld. 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 01.04.19, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17. 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 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32584 WP No. 25572 of 2023 establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants 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 accused appellants, 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) In the light of the law as laid down by the Apex Court is considered, the facts obtaining in the case at hand are considered on the bedrock of the principles laid down by the Apex Court. Permitting further trial in the case at hand would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition insofar as the husband/accused No.1 stands dismissed. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32584 WP No. 25572 of 2023 (ii) The petition insofar as the accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 is allowed. (iii) The impugned crime in crime No.111/2023 pending on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagalur, qua petitioners No.2 to 4 stand quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42