- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4284 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VINAY KUMAR N G S/O. GURULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT. 27 YEARS OCCUPATION. ENGINEER IN PVT.COMPANY 2. SMT. SHAKUNTHALA W/O.GURULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT. 63 YEARS RETIRED FROM SERVICE. 3. SRI. GURULINGAPPA S/O.LATE. KEMPA NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT. 64 YEARS OCCUPATION: SELF EMPLOYED ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.2416, DATTAGALLI, 3RD STAGE, KANAKADASA NAGARA MYSURU - 570 033. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.V. DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, WOMEN POLICE STATION MYSURU CITY - 570 001. 3. MANASA.C.K. D/O. KENDAGANNASWAMY W/O.VINAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS OCCUPATION" HOUSE WIFE RESIDING AT NO.57, GROUP - 4 MIG-2, KHB COLONY, HOOTAGALLI, MYSURU - 570 023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. MOHAMMED ZABIULLA KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET NO.21/2025 DATED 01.02.2025 (ANNEXURE K) AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF C.C.NO.102/2025 P/U/S 85, 352, 3(5) OF BNS AND SEC.3 ,4 OF DP ACT 1961 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED/PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners - accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are before the Court, calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.102/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 352 and 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 pending on the file of 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Mysuru. 2. Heard Sri. S.V.Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners; Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. Mohammed Zabiulla Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: Before embarking upon the consideration of the issue in the lis, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the protagonists in the lis. Respondent No.3 is the complainant - wife of accused No.1/petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No.3 - complainant, respectively. The complainant and petitioner No.1 get engaged on 21.04.2024 and eventually, get married on 30.05.2024. Soon after the marriage, it transpires that the relationship between the couple i.e., accused No.1 and the complainant would flounder. On the floundering of the relationship, the wife registers a complaint - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 against the petitioners herein - accused Nos.1 to 3 on 21.11.2024, which becomes a crime in Crime No.895/2024. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against all the accused in C.C.No.102/2025. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. S.V.Desai, would contend that there is no allegation that would meet the ingredients of the offences so alleged against these petitioners even to its remotest sense. Petitioner No.1 is said to have suffered from epilepsy after marriage. Therefore, on these scores, the proceedings must not be permitted to continue against the petitioners. 4.2. Learned counsel would contend that the proceedings for divorce is at its fag end and in the event this Court would come to conclude that accused No.1 must face proceedings, it should be reserved liberty to knock at the doors of this Court, if after the proceedings for divorce. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 5. The learned counsel representing respondent No.3 - complainant would however refute the submissions in contending that there are allegations against all the accused therefore, the further proceedings must be permitted to be continued against all the accused as the demand of dowry runs through the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would 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 available on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts, relationship between the parties, the date of marriage and the date of institution of the proceedings is not in dispute. The complaint comes to be registered on 21.11.2024. Since the entire issue now triggers - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 from the registration of the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows: "ೆ, ಆರಕ ೕ ಕರು ಮ ಾ ೕ ಾೆ ಲರ ೕಹಾ, ೖಸೂರು ಇಂದ, !ಾನಸ #.$ೆ. $ೋಂ %ನ& ಕು!ಾ' ಎಂ.). ಮ*ೆ ನಂ 57, ಗೂ,ಪ -4, MIG 2 $ೆ.6ೆ7.8 $ಾೋ, ಹೂಟಗ:;, ೖಸೂರು-18 <ೕ= ನಂ: .8861407727 %ಷಯ:- ಗಂಡ %ನ& ಕು!ಾ', ಅCೆD ಶಕುಂತಲ, !ಾವ ಗುರುಂಗಪH ಮತುD ಗುರುನಂಜಪH ರವರುಗಳK ನನೆ ವರದLೆ Mರುಕುಳ ಮತುD !ಾನ#ಕ 6ಾಗೂ Nೈ ಕOಾP Mರುಕುಳ ೕQದುR, ಮತುD ನನS ಗಂಡೆ !ಾ*ೋ $ಾTೆ ಇದRರು ಸಹ ೕಸUಂದ ಮದುOೆ !ಾQದ ಬೆW ದೂರು. XಾYZ, *ಾನು ಈಗ ೕಲ\ಂಡ %ಾಸದ Oಾಸ%ದುR ನಮ] ಹೆಯ ದೂರದ ಸಂಬಂ^ಯ ಮಗ %ನ& ಕು!ಾ' ಎಂಬ ಹುಡುಗದುR ತುಂ_ಾ ಒೆ;ಯ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಎಂದು ಗುರುನಂಜಪH a:#ದುR ಅದರಂCೆ *ಾವbಗಳK ಹುಡುಗನ ಬೆW %cಾ # U*ಾಂಕ: 21-04- 2024, ದde ಕ*ೆYಷ= 6ಾf, ಹೂಟಹ:;, dgCಾಥeವನುS !ಾQದುR ಈ ಸಮಯದ ಹುಡುಗೆ ವiೋಪcಾರOಾP 10ಾ,ಂ ಉಂಗುರ ಮತುD ಬkೆlೆ ಸು!ಾರು ರೂ. 5,000/- ೕQದುR, ನನೆ ನನೆ ಒಬm*ೇ ಮಗ*ಾದ $ಾರಣ ಮದುOೆೆ ಸು!ಾರು ಜನರು ಬರುCಾDiೆ ಎಂದು 6ೇ:ರುCಾDiೆ 6ಾಗೂ ವರದLೆ ಮತುD ವiೋಪcಾರOಾP ಸು!ಾರು cೈ=, _ಾ, ೇo, ಮತುD ಉಂಗುರ 6ಾಗೂ Oಾ7, ಬkೆl $ೋQಸ_ೇ$ೆಂದು 6ೇ:ರುCಾDiೆ. ಅದರಂCೆ U*ಾಂಕ: *30-05-2024 ರಂದು ನಮ] ಮದುOೆಯನುS ೖಸೂ ನ "dವಣp qಾವea ಕಾrಣ ಮಂಟಪ", %sೆYೕಶYರನಗರ, ೖಸೂರು, ಇ *ೆರOೇ ರುತDNೆ, ಮದುOೆಯ ಸಮಯದ ನಮ] ತಂNೆಯವರು $ೇವಲ 30 ಾ,ಂನ tನSದ cೈನನುS ೕQದುR _ಾM tನSದ ವಡOೆಗಳನುS - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 ನಂತರದ ೕಡುCೆDೕOೆ ಎಂದು ಒuH$ೊಂQರುCಾDiೆ ಮದುOೆvಾದ ನಂತರ *ಾವb ನಮ] OೈOಾ ಕ )ೕವನವನುS ನನS ಗಂಡನ ಮ*ೆ ದಟlಗ:;ಯ qಾ,ರಂw#ರುCೆDOೆ ಈ ಸಮಯದ *ಾನು ನನS ಮ*ೆTಂದ tನSದ *ೆxೆ 25 ಾ,ಂ, 13 ಾ,ಂ ಓೆ-ಜುಮುM, 6ಾಗೂ ಸು!ಾರು 25-30 Xಾ%ರ ರೂqಾTಗಳK _ೆೆ_ಾಳKವ ಬkೆlಗಳ*ೇಲ Cೆೆದು$ೊಂಡು 6ೋPರುCೆD*ೆ. ಮದುOೆvಾದ ಸು!ಾರು 1 aಂಗಳKಗಳ $ಾಲ ಅ*ೊSೕನrOಾPದುR ಈ ಸಮಯದ ನನS ಗಂಡನ ನಡುವ:$ೆಯ 6ಾಗೂ ಆiೋಗrದ ವrCಾrಸಗಳK ಕಂಡುಬರಲು qಾ,ರಂw#ದುR ಸದ %cಾರವನುS *ಾನು ನನS ಅCೆD ಶಕುಂತಲ ಮತುD !ಾವ ಗುರುಂಗಪHರವ ೆ a:#ರುCೆDೕ*ೆ, ಈ ಸಮಯದ ನನS ಮಗೆ vಾವbNೇ $ಾTೆ ಇಲ ಎಂದು 6ೇಳKCಾD ಮ] ತಂNೆ ನನS ಮಗೆ ಮದುOೆ ಸಮಯದ ಒಪH$ೊಂಡಂCೆ $ೊಡ_ೇಕNಾ _ಾM ವಡOೆಗಳನುS Cೆೆದು$ೊಂಡು _ಾ ಎಂದು 6ೇ: !ಾನ#ಕ OಾP ಂXೆ ೕQರುCಾDiೆ ನಂತರ *ಾನು ಆzಾಡ !ಾಸ$ೆ\ಂದು ನನS ತಂNೆಯ ಮ*ೆೆ ಬಂUದುR, ಈ ಸಮಯದ ನನS ಗಂಡನ ಆiೋಗrದ ಸಮXೆr ಉಂkಾPದುR ಮೂಛe iೋಗ ಕಂಡು ಬಂUರುತDNೆ ಸದ %cಾರವನುS ನನS ಅCೆD !ಾವ ನZ]ಂದ ಮiೆ !ಾQರುCಾDiೆ. ನಂತರ *ಾನು ಗಂಡನ ಮ*ೆೆ 6ೋNಾಗ ನನS ಅCೆD !ಾವ ನಮೆ $ೊಡ_ೇ$ಾದ ವಡOೆಗಳನುS Cೆೆದು$ೊಂಡು _ಾ ಎಂದು 6ೇ:ರುCಾDiೆ ನಮ] ತಂNೆಯವರು *ಾನು ಈಗ Cಾ*ೇ ಮದುOೆ !ಾQNೆR*ೆ ಮದುOೆಯ ಸಮತದ ನನೆ ಸು!ಾರು 30 ಲದಷುl ಖಚುe OೆಚgಗಾPದುR ಮತುD *ಾನು ಮದುOೆೆಂದು $ೈXಾಲಗಳನುS !ಾQರುCೆD*ೆ, ಈ $ಾರಣ ನಮೆ ಸYಲH ಸಮಯ_ೇಕು $ೇ:$ೊಂQರುCಾDiೆ, ಅದiೆ ನಮ] ಅCೆD !ಾವ ಗಂಡ vಾವbNೇ !ಾತುಗಳನುS $ೇಳNೇ ನನS ೕೆ ಗಾkೆ !ಾQ !ಾನ#ಕ ಮತುD Nೈ ಕOಾP ಂXೆ ೕQರುCಾDiೆ. ಈ %cಾರವನುS *ಾನು ನಮ] ತಂNೆಯವ ೆ a:#ರುCೆDೕ*ೆ ಆಗ ನಮ] ತಂNೆ, CಾT, ನನS ಗಂಡನ ಮ*ೆೆ ಬಂUದುR ನಮೆ ಸYಲH ಸಮಯವನುS ೕQ *ಾನು !ಾaನಂCೆ *ೆ~ೆದು$ೊಳK;CೆD*ೆ ಎಂದು 6ೇ: _ೇQ$ೊಂQರುCಾDiೆ, ಆದiೆ ಅCೆD !ಾವ ಗಂಡ vಾವbದಕೂ\ ಒಪHNೇ ಅOಾಚr ಶಬRಗ:ಂದ ನನS ತಂNೆ CಾTೆ _ೈದು ಅವ!ಾನ !ಾQರುCಾDiೆ. ನಂತರ U*ಾಂಕ 24-09-2024 ರಂದು ನನS ಗಂಡೆ $ೆಲಸದ ಇರುವ ಸಂದಭeದ ಮೂ€ೆe iೋಗ ಬಂUದುR ಕೂಡೇ ಬೃಂNಾನವ ಆಸHCೆ,ೆ ಒಳiೋPvಾP Nಾಖಲು !ಾQರುCಾDiೆ ಸದ %cಾರವನುS ನನS ಅCೆD !ಾವ ನನೆ a:ಸNೇ ಇರುCಾDiೆ, ನಂತರ ನನೆ %cಾರ a:UದುR ನನS ಗಂಡೆ ಲಕY ಆPದುR ಅವನ ಬಲ‚ಾಗ XಾY^ೕನ ಕೆದು$ೊಂQದುR, ಎಡ‚ಾಗದ $ೈ ಸYಲH XಾY^ೕನ ಕQvಾPರುತDNೆ. ಮತುD ದು:ನ ರಕD6ೆಪbHಗƒlರುತDNೆ, ಈ %cಾರವನುS *ಾನು ಮತುD ನನS ತಂNೆ CಾTರು $ೆಳಲು 6ೋNಾಗ ನಮ]ಗಳ ೕೆ ಅCೆD !ಾವ ಗಾkೆ !ಾQದುR ನನS ಅCೆD *ಾನು ವೃತD ೕ ನನSನುS ೕವb ಎನೂS !ಾQ$ೋಳಲು ಆಗುವbUಲ. ನನೆ ೕ ಇಾ…ೆಯ ಎಲರ ಪ ಚಯ%Nೆ ಎಂದು 6ೇ: ನಮ] ೕೆ - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 ವರದLೆ %cಾರOಾP ಗಾkೆ !ಾQರುCಾDiೆ, 6ಾಗೂ ನನSನುS ಮ*ೆTಂದ ಉಟl ಬkೆlಯ 6ೊರ6ಾMರುCಾDiೆ, ಇNಾದ ಎರಡು Uನ ನಂತರ ಅCೆD, !ಾವ, ಗಂಡ ಮತುD ಗುರುನಂಜಪH ರವರುಗಳK ನಮ] ಹೂಟಗ:; ಮ*ೆೆ ಬಂದು ನಮ] ೕೆ ಗಾkೆ !ಾQದುR ನನS ಮಗೆ vಾವbNೇ $ಾTೆ ಇಲ ಮೆ ಒuH$ೊಂಡಂCೆ ವರದLೆ $ೊಡಲು ಆಗUದRiೆ ಮ] ಮಗಳನುS ಮ] ಮ*ೆಯ†ೕ ಇಟುl$ೊ:; ಎಂದು 6ೇ: ಅOಾಚr ಶಬRಗ:ಂದ _ೈದು XಾವeಜಕOಾP ಅವ!ಾ#ರುCಾDiೆ, ನಂತರ ಹುಡುಗನ ಆiೋಗrದ ಬೆW %cಾ #Nಾಗ ಮ*ೋ$ಾTೆ ಅವೆ ಇರುವ %cಾರ ೋCಾDPರುತDNೆ ನನS ಅCೆD !ಾವ ಮತುD ಗುರುನಂಜಪH ಇವiೇಲರು Xೇ ೕಸUಂದ ನನS %OಾಹವನುS !ಾQರುCಾDiೆ, ಅಲNೇ ನZ]ಂದ ಸು!ಾರು 30-35 ಲದಷುl ಹಣ Oೆಚg!ಾQ#ರುCಾDiೆ 6ಾಗೂ ನನS tನSದ ಒಡOೆಗಳK ಮತುD ಬkೆlಗಳನುS, ಂUರುPಸNೇ ೕಸ!ಾQರುCಾDiೆ. …ಾವಂದiಾದ CಾವbಗಳK ದಯ!ಾQ ಈ ೕೆ 6ೇ:ದ ವrMDಗಳ %ರುದ‡ ಸೂಕD $ಾನೂನು ಕ,ಮವನುS ಜರುP# ನನೆ *ಾrಯವನುS NೊರM#$ೊಡ_ೇ$ೆಂದು 6ಾಗೂ ನನS ವಡOೆ, ವಸˆಗಳನುS ಂUರುP# $ೊಡ_ೇ$ೆಂದು ತಮ] qಾ,ಥe*ೆ. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column number 17 reads as follows: "17. $ೇ#ನ ಸಂLಪD %ವರ (ಆವಶrಕ%ದR ಪ,Cೆrೕಕ 6ಾೆ ಲಗaD#) ೕ. ನಂ: 03/2025 $ಾಲಂ. 85, 352 iೆ/ % 3(5) 8.ಎ=.ಎ-2023 ಮತುD ಕಲಂ: 3, 4 Q.u ಆxl ೖಸೂರು ನಗರದ ಕುOೆಂಪbನಗರ ೕ ಾಾ ಸರಹದುR, ದಟlಗ:;, 3*ೇ ಹಂತ, Q._ಾx, 3*ೇ ೕ= ನರುವ ಮ*ೆ ನಂಬ':2416 ರ OಾಸOಾPದR ಈ Nೋzಾiೋಪಣ ಪತ,ದ $ಾಲಂ ನಂಬ':12 ರ ಕಂಡ ಆiೋu-1 ರವರು U*ಾಂಕ:21.04.2024 ರಂದು XಾL- 1 ರವರ ŽೊCೆ ದde ಕ*ೆYನ•= 6ಾf, ಹೂಟಗ:;ಯ dgCಾಥeವನುS !ಾQ$ೊಂQದುR, ಈ ಸಮಯದ XಾL-1 ರವರ ಮ*ೆಯವರು ಆiೋu-1 ರವ ೆ ವರದLೆvಾP 10ಾ,ಂ tನSದ ಉಂಗುರ ಮತುD ಬkೆlೆಂದು 5 Xಾ%ರ ರೂಗಳನುS $ೊƒlರುCಾDiೆ. ನಂತರ U*ಾಂಕ:30.05.2024 ರಂದು ಆiೋu-1 ರವರು XಾL-1 ರವರನುS ೖಸೂ ನ %sೆYೕಶYರ ನಗರದರುವ dವಣp qಾವea ಕಾrಣ ಮಂಟಪದ ಗುರು- ಯರ ಸಮು]ಖದ ಮದುOೆ - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 !ಾQ$ೊಂQರುCಾDiೆ. ಆ ಸಮಯದ XಾL-1 ರವರ ಮ*ೆಯವರು ಆiೋu-1 ರವ ೆ ವರದLೆvಾP 30 ಾ,ಂ tನSದ cೈನನುS !ಾತ, $ೊಟುl _ಾM tನSದ ವಡOೆಗಳನುS ನಂತರ $ೊಡುCೆDೕ*ೆಂದು 6ೇ:ರುCಾDiೆ. ನಂತರ XಾL-1 ರವರು ದಟlಗ:;ಯ ಆiೋu-1 ಂದ 3 ರ ವiೆPನವರುಗಳ ŽೊCೆ OಾಸOಾPದುR, ಒಂದು aಂಗಳ $ಾಲ ಅನೂrನrOಾPದುR, ಈ ಸಮಯದ XಾL-1 ರವ ೆ ಆiೋu-1 ರವರ ನಡವ:$ೆ ಮತುD ಅiೋಗrದ ೕೆ ಅನು!ಾನ ಬಂದು ಆiೋu-2 ಮತುD 3 ರವರನುS $ೇ:Nಾಗ, ಅವರು XಾL-1 ರವ ೆ ನನS ಮಗೆ vಾವbNೇ …ಾTೆಗ:ಲ ಮ] ತಂNೆ ನಮ] ಮಗೆ ಮದುOೆ ಸಮಯದ $ೊಡ_ೇ$ಾದ _ಾM ವಡOೆಗಳನುS Cೆೆದು$ೊಂಡು _ಾ ಎಂದು 6ೇ: Nೈ ಕOಾP ಮತುD !ಾನ#ಕOಾP ಂXೆ ೕQ ಅOಾಚr ಶಬRಗ:ಂದ _ೈUರುವbದು ಇದುವiೆ%ಗೂ ನ~ೆT#ದ ತ…ೆTಂದ ದೃಢಪಟl ೕiೆೆ ಆiೋu-1 ಂದ 3 ರ ವiೆPನವರುಗಳ %ರುದ‡ ಕಲಂ:85, 352 iೆ/% 3(5) 8.ಎ=.ಎ-2023 ಮತುD ಕಲಂ: 3, 4 Q.u ಆxl ೕCಾr NೋzಾiೋuಸಾPNೆ." A perusal at the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet would clearly indicate that the allegations against the parents are omnibus, vague and the demand of dowry is not specifically stated and the cruelty meted out by them on demand of dowry is not even stated. 9. The Apex Court in a plethora of cases has held that the family members of the husband cannot be drawn into the web of crime on the basis of bald and omnibus allegations. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 9.1. The Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM v. STATE OF BIHAR1, has held as follows: “…. …. …. Issue Involved 10. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the Appellants and Respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the 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:- 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162 - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 “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 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.” - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 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 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 - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 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 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 - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 skirmishes 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 - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 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 - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the 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.” 9.2. The Apex Court in the case of ARTI MEHTA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH2, has held 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 2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 933 - 17 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 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 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 - 18 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 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 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 - 19 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 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 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 - 20 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 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 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. - 21 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 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 (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 - 22 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 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 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 - 23 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 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 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 - 24 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 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 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 - 25 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 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 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 - 26 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 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 at each instance) In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, permitting further proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 - the mother-in-law and the father-in-law, respectively, would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in the - 27 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the proceedings against the two must be obliterated. 10. Insofar as the proceedings against petitioner No.1 - husband is concerned, it is open to petitioner No.1 to avail of such remedy as available in law, as the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet would clearly indicate that further proceedings are necessary to be continued against this petitioner. However, in the event the parties would come to a settlement in the divorce proceedings, it is open to petitioner No.1 to approach this Court. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R i. Criminal petition is allowed-in-part. ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.102/2025 pending on the file of 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Mysuru stand quashed qua petitioner Nos.2 and 3 / accused Nos.2 and 3. - 28 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010197732025 NC: 2026:KHC:36018 CRL.P No. 4284 of 2025 iii. Proceedings in C.C.No.102/2025 pending on the file of 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Mysuru shall continue qua petitioner No.1 - husband. iv. Petitioner No.1 - husband is at liberty to approach this Court in the event the parties come to a settlement in the divorce proceedings. Ordered accordingly. I.A.No.2/2025 stands disposed as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6