- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11744 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI LINGARAJU, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.110, B BLOCK, 13TH CROSS ROAD, OLD MADIWALA, CHIKKA MADIWALA, BTM 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU 560068. 2. SMT. LAKSHMI @ LAKSHMI RAMANNA, W/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.110, B BLOCK, 13TH CROSS ROAD, OLD MADIWALA, CHIKKA MADIWALA, BTM 1ST STAGE BENGALURU 560068. 3. SRI GOPI, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.110, B BLOCK, 13TH CROSS ROAD, OLD MADIWALA, CHIKKA MADIWALA, BTM 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU 560068. 4. SRI SHIVARAJU, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.110, B BLOCK, 13TH CROSS ROAD, OLD MADIWALA, CHIKKA MADIWALA, BTM 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU 560068. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS JURISDICTIONAL POLICE, MADIWALA POLICE STATION, MADIWALA SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU 560068. REP BY SPP, BENGALURU 560001. 2. SMT. SAHANA R, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, D/O C V RAMAKRISHNA, W/O LINGARAJ M, R/AT NO.143, KANAKAPURA ROAD, NEAR ART OF LIVING, OBICHUDAHALLI, UDAYAPURA, BENGALURU 560082. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DEEPTI ALVA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI ANIL R, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) TO 1) QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 45/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE XXXII ADDL. ACMM, BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED P/U/S/ 506, 34, 498(A), 504 AND 323 OF THE IPC, WHICH IS AT DOCUMENT NO. 1, SET ASIDE ORDER - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 DATED 09/3/2023, CONSEQUENTLY, ACQUIT / DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER NO. 1 TO 4 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 506, 34, 498A, 504 AND 323 OF THE IPC, WHICH IS AT DOCUMENT NO. 2 AND ETC. 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 are before this Court calling in question criminal proceedings in C.C.No.45 of 2023 pending before the XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 read with 34 of the IPC. 2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: 2.1. Before embarking upon narration of facts, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the parties in the lis. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law of the 2nd respondent, while petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the brother-in-laws of the 2nd respondent. The - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent get married on 11-11-2020 and from the relationship a child is born. On floundering of the relationship between the parties, the mother of the 2nd respondent files a complaint before the jurisdictional Police. The said complaint is closed by the Police after conducting an enquiry. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent files a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the concerned Court in Crl.Misc.No.340 of 2022 seeking for maintenance from the 1st petitioner. A case is also filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners, under various provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘Domestic Violence Act’ for short) seeking for maintenance, protection and residence orders. 2.2. Two years after their marriage, on 18-06-2022, the 2nd respondent files the impugned complaint against the petitioners, alleging demand of dowry, verbal abuse, harassment and threats to her life. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.13551 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 IPC. Upon completion of the investigation, the Police file a charge sheet before the concerned Court. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and directs the registration of a criminal case in C.C.No.45 of 2023. It is challenging these criminal proceedings, the petitioners are before this Court in the subject petition. This Court had protected further trial against the in-laws of the 2nd respondent i.e., petitioner Nos.2 to 4 while permitting the trial to go on against the husband - petitioner No.1. 3. Heard Sri. Cyril Prasad Pais, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Deepti Alva, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sri. Anil R. learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the allegations in the compliant do not constitute a prima facie case for the offences alleged against the petitioners. The jewellery of the 2nd respondent/complainant was kept with the petitioner No.3, - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 who is the brother-in-law of the complainant because he was the head of the family, and this by itself does not make out an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. The complaint is absolutely vague and there are no overt acts alleged against the petitioners. The petitioner no.2/mother-in-law and the petitioner Nos.3 and 4/brother-in-laws are without any rhyme or reason dragged into these proceedings. He would seek quashment of the crime on the score that it is an abuse of the process of law. 5. Per contra, the counsel for the 2nd respondent/ complainant would contend that jewellery worth Rs.30 lakhs belonging to the 2nd respondent was with the petitioners and an amount of Rs.20 lakhs was spent on the marriage. There are money trials and bank transactions indicating the payment of money by the 2nd respondent to the petitioners. Further, the learned counsel also relies on a telephonic conversation between the petitioner No.2/mother-in-law and the respondent No.2, further evidencing the allegations in the complaint. On this score, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 submit that prima facie allegations are made out against the petitioners and there being several disputed questions of facts, the trial must be permitted to continue. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader, Smt. Deepti Alva would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant in seeking dismissal of the petition. 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 are what is narrated in the complaint. The relationship between the 1st petitioner and the complainant is that of husband and wife. The two get married on 11-11-2020. Merely, two years after the relationship, the relationship between the two is said to have floundered and several proceedings including ones under the Domestic Violence Act and proceedings seeking maintenance, galore between the - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 two. The subject issue concerns the proceedings arising from the complaint dated 18.06.2022 filed by the 2nd respondent - complainant against her husband and her in-laws i.e., the petitioners in the case at hand. The complaint reads as follows: "ಇವೆ, ಆರ ಕ ೕ ಕರು, ಮಾಳ ಆರ ಕ ಾೆ, ೆಂಗಳರು-560 068. ಇಂದ, Sahana R. W/o. Lingaraju M. Aged about 27 years, R/at No.110, 'B' Block, Kupersten, 13th Cross Road, Old Madivala, 1st Stage, BTM Layout Bengaluru-560 068, Phone No.: 99022 60480 ಧಮ : ಂದೂ, ಾ : S.C. !ಷಯ : ಗಂಡ,ಅ&ೆ', (ಾವ, )ೖದುನರ !ರುದ, ಸೂಕ' ದೂರು .ಾಖ0ಸುವ ಬೆ2. 3ಾ45, Sahana R. ಎಂಬ 7ಾನು ಈ )ೕಲ:ಂಡ !;ಾಸದ0< ನನ= ಗಂಡನ ೊ&ೆ ಾಸಾ>ರುೆ. 7ಾನು ನನ= ?ೕಷಕರ ಆಶಯದ0< ಇರು&ೆ'ೕ7ೆ. ನನೆ )ೕAೆ BCದ 0ಂಗDಾಜು ಎF ಎಂಬುವವರ ಒಡ7ೆ H7ಾಂಕ 11-11-2020 ರಂದು IJೕ KೇತJ ಧಮಸMಳದ0< ಮದುೆ ನNೆHರುತ'.ೆ. ನನ= ಗಂಡ Oಾಗೂ ಅ&ೆ', (ಾವ, )ೖದುನ ರವರು !ಾಹ QಾRೊಳSಲು (ಾ ನನೆ ವರದTೆಾ> ೇRೆ ಇUVರು&ಾ'Dೆ. Oಾಗೂ 0ಂಗDಾಜು ಎಂಬವೆ ಇಷV!ಲ<HದWರೂ ಸಹ ವರದTೆ ೕಡHದW0< ನನ= ಭ!ಷY Zೆ7ಾ=>ರುವ[Hಲ< Oಾಗೂ \ೕವನವ[ Qಾಡುವ[.ೇ ಕಷVೆಂದು ಅತ ನನ= ?ೕಷಕರು ಶ]'5ೕ ಸಸುQಾರು ಐವತು' ಅರವತು' ಲ ನನ= ಭ!ಷYದ ತ ದೃ`Vaಂದ ನನ= ಗಂಡ - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 Oಾಗೂ (ಾವ, )ೖದುನರ ಒತ'ಡRೆ: QಾದುW ಅವರ ೇRೆ ಇಟVಂ&ೆ ಅವರ ಇZೆc ಪeDೈಸಲು ಶ]'5ೕ ಸುQಾರು 50, 60 ಲ !ಾಹದ RಾಯಕJಮRೆ: ವYಯ ಖಚು Qಾರು&ಾ'Dೆ. ಸ ಸುQಾರು ಮೂರು ಲ 7ೇರಾ> ನನ= ಅ&ೆ'ಯವರ gಾ&ೆೆ ಹಣ ಪNೆHರು&ಾ'Dೆ. ಮದುೆಯ ಕiನ0< ಸಸುQಾರು 9:30 ಲ ಆ7ೊ=ೕj ನ0< ಖಚು Qಾರು&ೆ'ೕೆ. 03-01-2021 ರಂದು ನನ=ನು= ನನ= ಗಂಡ ನನ= ತವರು ಮ7ೆೆ ಕDೆದುRೊಂಡು ಬಂದುkUVರು&ಾ'Dೆ. ನನೆ 10 ಂಗಳ ಗಂಡು ಮಗು!.ೆ. ನಗದು ರೂಪದ0< ೇRೆ ಇಟುV ಮದುೆ H7ಾಂಕ 29-10-2021 ರವDೆಗೂ ಸ ಸುQಾರು 20 ಲ ರೂlಾaಗಳನು= ೇRೆ ಇಟುV ನಗದು ರೂಪದ0< ಪNೆHರು&ಾ'Dೆ. ಇಷುV 3ಾಲ.ೆಂಬಂ&ೆ ಉBದ !ಾಹ ಆತ &ೆ ಇ=ತರ ಎಲ< ಖಚುಗಳನು= ನನ= ತಂ.ೆ &ಾaಯವDೇ 7ೋRೊಂರು&ಾ'Dೆ. ಇnೆVAಾ< Qಾದರು ಮದುೆಯ HನHಂದಲೂ ನನ=ನು= Oೆಂಡ ಯ 3ಾMನದ0< ಸೂಕ'ಾ> 7ೋRೊಂಲ<. ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು ೕ7ಾಯಾ> 7ೋRೊಂರು&ಾ'Dೆ. oಾಾಗಲೂ ನನ= ಗಂಡ, ಅ&ೆ', (ಾವ, )ೖದುನ ರವರು ಅI<ೕಲಾ> ನNೆದುRೊಂರುವ[ದು, ಅಾಚY ಶಬWಗBಂದ ಂದ7ೆ, RೌJಯ&ೆ, ಅQಾನ!ೕಯ ಕೃತY, ಮ7ೆ ೆಲಸದವಳಂ&ೆ 7ೋRೊಳqSವರು. (ಾವ )ೖದುನ ಸ.ಾ ನಮr ಗಮಸುವ[.ೇ ಆaತು &ಾನು ರುಾಡುವ[ದು ]ಟ] &ೆೆದು 7ೋಡುವ[ದು, RೆಟV ದೃ`Vaಂದ ನನ=ನು= 7ೋಡುವ[ದನು= Qಾಡು 'ರು&ಾ'7ೆ, ಒNೆಯುವ[ದು ನನ= ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಅವಶYಕ&ೆಗಳನು= ಈNೇಸುವ[ದು Oಾಗೂ ನನೆ 3ೇದ ಎರಡು ಎಕDೆ ಭೂ5ಯನು= ಬDೆaCRೊಡು ಎಂದು ಇಲ<HದW0< 3ಾaಸು&ೆ'ೕೆ ಎಂದು \ೕವ ೆದRೆ Oಾಕುವ[ದನು= Qಾರು&ಾ'Dೆ Oಾಗೂ ನನೆ ಆ ಮ7ೆಯ0< ಬಹಳ \ೕವ ೆದRೆ ಇರುವ[ದಂದ Oಾವ[ ಸೂಕ'ಾದ Rಾನೂನ ಕೃlೆ&ೋ ದಮ Rೈೊಂಡು ದೂರು .ಾಖ0C ನನ= ?ೕಷಕರ ತಂsೆೆ ಾರದಂ&ೆ ಎಚtRೆ ೕ ದೂರು .ಾಖ0C ನಮೆ ಸೂಕ' ಬಂ.ೋಬu QಾRೊಡೇRೆಂದು lಾJvಸು&ೆ'ೕೆ. ನಮೆ oಾವ[.ೇ ೕ ಯ0< &ೊಂದDೆ ಘUCದರೂ ನನ= ಗಂಡನ ಮ7ೆಯವDೇ ಜಾಾWರDಾ>ರು&ಾ'Dೆ. ವಂದ7ೆಗ;ೆಂHೆ, ಇಂ ತಮr !xಾ4C, Sahana R. No. 143, O.B. Chudahalli Village, Udayapura Post, - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 Kanakapura Main Road, Near Art of Living, Bengaluru. Husband: Lingaraju M. (98809 55510) 34 years ಅ&ೆ'oಾದ - ಲTy Dಾಮಣz(99865 84508) 59 years ¨sÁªÀ - UÉÆæ (99860 15274) 40 years ªÉÄÊzÀÄ£Á - ²ªÀgÁdÄ (99168 00891) 32 years ಈ Hನ H7ಾಂಕ 19-06-2022 ರಂದು ಸುQಾರು ೆಳೆ2 10.30 ಗಂsೆೆ ತುoಾಗ.ಾರರು ಾೆೆ OಾಜDಾ> Qಾದ ದೂರು ದೂನ )ೕAೆ ಾಾ {. ಸಂgೆY 99/2022 O/S.498(A), 504, 506, 323 R/W 34 ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ." The complaint leads to registration of a crime in Crime No.13551 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 4. The police conduct an investigation and file a charge-sheet against these petitioners. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17 reads as follows: "17. RೇCನ ಸಂTಪ' 3ಾDಾಂಶ H7ಾಂಕ: 11.11.2020 ರಂದು 3ಾT-3 ರವರ ಮಗ;ಾದ 3ಾT-1 ರವರನು= ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ, ಮಾಳ ?0ೕu Dಾಾ ಸರಹHWನ iಕ: ಆಡುೋ, 27ೇ RಾJu, DಾಮಯY ಾಡj ಬBaರುವ ಮ7ೆ ನಂ-6. ರ0< ಾಸಾ>ರುವ ಈ .ೋnಾDೋಪಣ ಪUV Rಾಲಂ ನಂ: 12 ರ0< ನಮೂHCರುವ ಎ-3 ರವರ ಮಗ7ಾದ ಎ-1 ಆDೋ|ೆ RೊಟುV ಖಚು Qಾ ಂದೂ ಸಂಪJ.ಾಯದ ಪJRಾರ ಧಮಸMಳದ0<, ಮದುೆ QಾRೊUVದುW, 3ಾT-1 ರವರು - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 ಮದುೆoಾ.ಾ>ಂದ H7ಾಂಕ:03.01.2022 ರವDೆೆ ಆDೋ|ಗಳ ಮ7ೆಯ0< ಎ-1 ಆDೋ| ೊ&ೆ ಸಂ3ಾರ QಾRೊಂಡು ಾಸ!ದುW, ಈ ಸಮಯದ0<, ಎ-1 ಂದ ಎ-4 ಆDೋ|ಗಳq Rೆಲ Hನ 3ಾT-1 ರವರನು= Zೆ7ಾ=> 7ೋRೊಂದುW, ತದನಂತರ ಮ7ೆಯ0< ಸಣz ಪ[ಟV !ZಾರಗBೆ ಗAಾsೆ Qಾ, Oೆitನ ಹಣ ತರುವಂ&ೆ QಾನCಕಾ> Oಾಗೂ .ೈಕಾ> ಂ3ೆ ೕ \ೕವ ೆದRೆ Oಾ]ರುವ[ದು ಇ0ಯವDೆ>ನ ತgೆaಂದ ದೃಡಪUVರುತ'.ೆ. ಆದWಂದ ಎ-1 ಂದ ಎ-4 ಆDೋ|ಗಳ !ರುದ, )ೕಲ:ಂಡ ಕಲಂ ನಂ&ೆ QಾನY 7ಾYoಾಲಯRೆ: .ೋnಾDೋಪಣ ಪUVಯನು= ಸ0<Cರುತ'.ೆ." If the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet are juxtaposed, what would unmistakably emerge is, the allegations against the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 i.e., mother-in-law and the brother-in-laws are loosely laid. The Apex Court in a plethora of judgments had quashed criminal proceedings against the in-laws and relatives of the husband wherein the allegations in the complaint are vague and omnibus. I therefore deem it apposite notice a few: 8.1. Later, the Apex Court in the case of CHARUL SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P.1, observes as follows: “….. ….. ….. 16. Learned counsel appearing for appellant/sister- in-law submitted that she is educated and has a degree in 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 476 - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 B.Tech and M.Tech. Furthermore, it has been submitted that she is gainfully employed at a college in the capacity of a professor and therefore has been living separately and away from the complainant and her husband and that after her marriage in 2010, she has never resided in Kanpur except while visiting Kanpur for participating in ceremonial functions during complainant's wedding and therefore the possibility of sharing a household with the complainant is highly improbable. It is further submitted that the FIR in question was lodged after a period of six years and seven months from the date of the complainant's marriage i.e. 16.04.2017 and within this period not even an iota of complaint was raised by the complainant. 17. It was also argued that the allegations with respect to the termination of pregnancy are vague and omnibus inasmuch as neither the spot of occurrence nor the date and time of the occurrence is mentioned in the FIR. The fact that the complainant has not given any proof of the pregnancy nor any medical note regarding the termination of the pregnancy in the FIR, is sufficient to show that the said allegations are flimsy and concocted. The fact that the complainant neither informed her maternal family nor her relatives nor did she file any complaint before the police about said incident, goes to the root of the matter and fortifies its falsity. 18. Similar submissions have been made on behalf of the parents-in-law of the complainant including that they have been living in Kanpur, separately from the complainant and her husband and as such no domestic relationship could have been established between them and the complainant. Further, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the father-in-law of the complainant is a senior citizen aged 73 years and that the mother-in-law is a retired BSNL employee who is also a septuagenarian, aged 71 years. It is submitted that the complainant had deserted her husband in the year 2018 and since then she has been living separately. It was further contended that the FIR in question, lodged at the instance of the complainant, constitutes a blatant abuse of the process of law and is intended to harass the aged parents-in-law, who are 73 and 71 years' old, respectively and that by no stretch of imagination, it could be stated - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 that they harassed the complainant and threw her out of the house. 19. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State, in support of the impugned order, submitted that the allegations made by respondent No. 4/complainant, in the FIR discloses the commission of a cognisable offence and therefore warrants no interference from this Court. It is submitted that the veracity of the defence taken by the appellants is a subject matter of investigation and trial and hence this Court may refrain, while exercising its authority in the quashing petition and rather enable adjudication upon the merits of the case. At this juncture, it is pertinent to take cognizance of the fact that there is no appearance on behalf of the complainant to oppose the present appeals for quashment of legal proceedings despite service of notice on her. 20. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and upon a careful perusal of the material placed on record, we note that the allegations contained in the Chargesheet are under Sections 498A, 323 and 354 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. In order to understand the nature of the offences and to correlate the same with the allegations contained in the FIR, the relevant provisions under the IPC as well as the DP Act are extracted as hereunder: “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 Section 323 of the IPC provides for punishment for voluntary causing hurt as defined under Section 321 of the IPC. The relevant provisions are extracted as hereunder: “321. Voluntarily causing hurt.— Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said “voluntarily to cause hurt”. 323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.— Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” Section 354 of the IPC provides for definition and punishment of assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. The relevant provision is extracted as hereunder: “354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.— Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Further, Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act provide the penalty for giving or taking dowry as well as for demanding dowry. The said provisions are reproduced as follows: “3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.—(1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more: - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,— (a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act; (b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act: Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given. 4. Penalty for demanding dowry.—If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.” Upon a plain reading of Section 498A of the IPC, it can be understood that an offence is punishable - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 under the said provision when a husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty, which may result in imprisonment for a term extending up to three years and a fine. The Explanation under Section 498A of the IPC defines “cruelty” for the purpose of the said provision to mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b). The first limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC states that “cruelty” means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC states that cruelty means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Further, clause (b) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC states that cruelty would also include harassment of the woman where such harassment is to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 21. At the outset, we find it important to underline and highlight that the husband is not a party in the present appeals and therefore we have been mindful of the fact that the said allegations have to be viewed from the standpoint of only the accused/appellants herein who are the sister-in-law and parents-in-law of the complainant. From a perusal of the instant FIR it is apparent that the complainant has alleged that at the time of her marriage with the accused/husband, her family had given gifts as per the status of his family. Despite that from the very first day after the marriage on 16.04.2017, when the complainant started residing at her matrimonial home, the husband along with the accused/appellants started harassing the complainant and demanded Rs. 8,50,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs Fifty Thousand) along with a car as additional dowry. Furthermore, the allegations against the sister-in-law of the complainant is that she instigated the husband of the complainant by - 17 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 making false accusations about the complainant having an illicit affair outside the marriage. Firstly, with reference to the allegations of dowry demand and related harassment of the complainant, it is noted by us that the complainant and the prosecution have failed to put forth any material evidence or substance which support the allegations contained in the FIR and the chargesheet. A mere statement stating that the accused/appellants herein frequently demanded dowry and harassed the complainant for the same is not sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings against them when the same are not corroborated or bolstered by other materials placed on record. At the same time, the said allegations also have to be juxtaposed with the fact that the complaint was registered by the complainant only on 15.11.2023 i.e. after a delay of more than six years and seven months from the alleged dowry demand. The prosecution has failed to put forth any sufficient cause for such delay and this casts aspersions on their story. At this juncture, we find it apposite to underline the importance of taking an early recourse to pursue and prosecute criminal complaints. We find that the citizens who allege commission of an offence should not dawdle on their rights but should rather pursue them in real time in order to achieve the ends of justice as vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt meaning, law protects those who are vigilant about their rights. The delay or lack thereof assumes greater importance in the matrimonial cases or criminal cases between the spouses as due to the personal nature of the allegations and relationship shared between the parties, there is already an insufficiency and inadequacy of evidence to support or rebut the claims and counterclaims. A delay of nearly seven years can therefore be fatal to the prosecution's case especially when the same has not been properly explained. 22. Furthermore, with respect to the allegations against the sister-in-law regarding the incitement of the complainant's husband in relation to the alleged extra-marital affair, the prosecution has failed to provide any specific detail and has not - 18 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 been able to elaborate upon the nature of the relationship or how those accusations purportedly affected complainant's relationship with her husband. It is apposite to note that upon the perusal of the records of the case, nothing material has been put forth to advance or substantiate the said allegations. Time and again, this Court has observed that merely stating certain vague and omnibus allegations without any cogent material evidence to support the same should not become a fillip to jump- start the criminal machinery of the State. At this juncture, we find it appropriate to quote the observations of this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 which is extracted as under: “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. … x x x 30. The inclusion of Section 498A of the 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 Page 22 of 26 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 498A of the IPC 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 - 19 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 scrutinized, 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 498A of the 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. 31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the 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 498A of the 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.” 8.2. Later, the Apex Court in the case of SIVARAMAN NAIR v. STATE OF KERALA2, observes as follows: “….. ….. ….. 22. We have heard Learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material on record. In light of the abovementioned position of law, two questions fall for consideration : first, whether the allegations contained in the FIR and the chargesheet prima facie disclose the commission of offences under Sections 498A and 494 read 2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 672 - 20 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 with Section 34 of the IPC against the accused-appellants specifically, as distinct from the accused-husband; and second, whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the accused-appellants would amount to an abuse of the process of law within the meaning of Section 482 of the CrPC. 23. At the outset, it is to be noted that the gravamen of the complaint lies against the accused- husband. Specific allegations regarding physical assault, demand of dowry and mental torture have been made against him pertaining to specific dates and incidents. The allegations against the accused- appellants however are less of that of active involvement and are mostly that of them being present or encouraging the harassment meted out by the accused-husband. This Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 has laid a word of caution in a similar case involving quashing of proceedings against members of the husband's family, by noting that: “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. …” 24. In the present case, accused-appellant no. 1, the father-in-law, and accused-appellant no. 2, the mother-in-law, are alleged to have been present during certain incidents of harassment and to have - 21 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 received amounts paid by the complainant's brother. However, the FIR does not attribute to them any specific act of demand, threat, or physical assault on any identifiable occasion. 25. Accused-appellant no. 3, the sister-in-law, is alleged to have received money for the purchase of a flat from the proceeds of the sale of gold, but no specific act of cruelty or coercion on her part has been alleged. No other allegations have been made against her except for the receipt of such money. In all three instances, the allegations consist of general statements of presence and encouragement rather than specific acts that individually constitute the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC. 26. Coming to the allegations under Section 494 of the IPC, it has been held in S. Nitheen (supra) that in order to bring home the said charge, the complainant is required to prima facie prove the overt act or omission of the accused persons in the second marriage ceremony. The prosecution has failed to provide any cogent evidence to establish such overt act or intention on part of the accused-appellants. 27. The High Court relied upon the statement of a witness to infer knowledge on the part of the accused- appellants. However, such inferential knowledge, without more, is insufficient to satisfy the threshold established in S. Nitheen (supra), which requires evidence of an overt act or omission. While it has been alleged that the accused- appellants were aware of the second marriage, mere knowledge that an act is being or has been committed by another person does not, by itself, establish the requisite common intention. Even proceeding on the basis that the accused-appellants were aware of the second marriage, there is no allegation, let alone any material, to suggest that they actively participated in, facilitated, or encouraged the solemnisation of that marriage.” - 22 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 8.3. Subsequently, the Apex Court in the case of ARTI MEHTA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH3, observes as follows: “…. …. …. 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 3 2026 SCC OnLine SC 933 - 23 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 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 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, - 24 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 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 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. - 25 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 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 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 - 26 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 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 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 - 27 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 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 (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. - 28 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 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 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, - 29 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 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 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 - 30 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 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 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 - 31 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 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 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. - 32 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 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 at each instance) The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgments while quashing criminal proceedings against the in-laws observes that, vague and omnibus allegations against relatives of the husband, and merely stating that the relatives of the husband used to harass the complainant-wife, in the absence of specific factual assertions would not be sufficient to constitute a criminal offence. Further, general statements against in-laws/relatives of the husband of being present or encouraging harassment meted by the husband, without any specific identifiable overt act would not attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. 9. In that light, permitting further proceedings against the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 i.e., in-laws of the complainant, would run foul of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the - 33 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 afore-quoted judgments and the proceedings qua the petitioners Nos.2 to 4 deserve to be quashed. 10. Insofar as the husband – petitioner No.1 is concerned, this Court had not protected the trial against the husband, finding that the allegations against the husband would undoubtedly point at the ingredients of the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. In that light, the trial against the husband shall continue. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.45 of 2023, pending before the XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru, insofar as petitioner Nos.2 to 4 - accused 3, 2 and 4, respectively, stand quashed. - 34 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010591042024 NC: 2026:KHC:38789 CRL.P No. 11744 of 2024 (iii) The proceedings in C.C.No.45 of 2020, pending before the XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru, insofar as petitioner No.1 - accused No.1, shall continue. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81