- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14478 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAHUL CHANDRA, SON OF RAVISHANKAR SINHA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.410, MAA NIVASAM, VIJAY VIHAR LAYOUT, KODUGEHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 048. 2. SRI. RAVISHANKAR SINHA, SON OF NAWAL KISHORE PRASAD VARMA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT BAGMALI KHATA JANGI, HAJIPUR, VAISHALI, BIHAR - 844 101. 3. SMT. SARITA SINHA, WIFE OF RAVISHANKAR SINHA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT BAGHMALI, HAJIPUR, VAISHALI, BIHAR - 844 101. 4. SMT.SUPRIYA SHEKAR, DAUGHTER OF RAVISHANKAR SINHA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 RESIDING AT BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA. (AS PER FIR) ALSO RESIDING AT BAGHMALI, HAJIPUR, VAISHALI, BIHAR - 844 101. (AS PER AADHAR) 5. SRI. SWARNESH SHEKHAR, SON OF LATE SATYENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA. (AS PER FIR) ALSO RESIDING AT FLAT NO.1205, BLOCK J, SUMADHURA EDEN GARDEN, DODDABANAHALLI, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, NEAR ATAL BIHARI BOTANICAL GARDEN, DODDABANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 067. (AS PER AADHAR) 6. SRI. ABHIMANYU ADITYA, SON OF RAVISHANKAR SINHA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA. (AS PER FIR) - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 ALSO RESIDING AT NO.882, 1ST FLOOR, 26TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU - 560 102. (AS PER AADHAR). 7. SMT. SUCHITA SUCHI, WIFE OF ABHIMANYU ADITYA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA. (AS PER FIR) ALSO RESIDING AT NO.882, 1ST FLOOR, 26TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU - 560 102. (AS PER AADHAR) …PETITIONERS (BY MS.AMRITA MANCHANDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHASHANK NAGENDRAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY WHITEFIELD WOMEN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY. REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 2. SMT. SHUBHAM SHWETA, WIFE OF RAHUL CHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.410, MAA NIVASAM, VIJAY VIHAR LAYOUT, KODUGEHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 048. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1; SRI.SAMEER SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.45/2024 DATED 15.10.2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 WHITE FIELD WOMEN P.S ON BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT / RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 85, 352, 115(2) R/W 3(5) OF THE BNS AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Ms. Amrita Manchanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. Sameer Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners files a memo seeking to withdraw the petition insofar as the first petitioner is concerned in the light of the fact that there is no interim order of stay is operating qua petitioner No.1. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed qua petitioner No.1. 3. The petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 7 remain in the fray before this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.45/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 352, 115(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 4. Before embarking upon the consideration of the issue on its merit, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the protagonists of the crime. The second respondent complainant is the wife of accused No.1. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are mother-in-law and father-in-law of complainant. Accused Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 are sister-in-law, brother-in-law and their respective spouses. The marriage between accused No.1 and the complainant happens on 20.04.2022. It transpires that the relationship between the two - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 i.e. the husband and the wife gets floundered on manifold reasons. This leads to registration of crime against each other. One such proceeding instituted by the wife is a complaint registered before the jurisdictional police, which becomes a crime in Crime No.45/2024 for it having been registered on 15.10.2024. The complaint becomes a crime as aforesaid for the afore-quoted offences. The crime is registered and the petitioners are at the doors of this Court. This Court in terms of its order dated 09.01.2025 granted an interim order of stay insofar as the other accused i.e. accused Nos.2 to 7 are concerned and not against the husband. The investigation against the husband continued and the police are said to have filed a charge sheet against the husband and the husband has now withdrawn the said petition reserving liberty to call in question the charge sheet. Charge sheet is filed. The trial is in progress. Therefore, accused No.1 has withdrawn his case. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that even a perusal at the complaint would not indicate foundational allegations even that can become a crime for offences punishable under Section 85 or any other - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 offence inter-alia. Learned counsel would submit that insofar as the husband is concerned, the allegations are present and the husband is facing the trial. These petitioners who are the mother-in-law, father-in-law or other relatives of accused No.1 - husband must not be permitted to be investigated into, as they have not committed any overt acts that would become the offences or ingredients of the offences under the BNS 2023 and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The learned counsel would seek quashment of the registration of the crime. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would take this Court through the statement of objections and the complaint itself to demonstrate that there are specific allegations against the mother-in-law and father-in- law. He would leave the decision to the Court with regard to accused Nos.4 to 7. But insofar as the mother-in-law and father-in-law, it is his submission that finding specific overt acts narrated against them, the investigation must be permitted to be continued. He would further take this Court through to the undertaking given by the husband, when a complaint was sought to be registered on an earlier occasion before the - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 jurisdictional police that the husband or his family members would not use abusive words upon the complainant and they continued to use, is his submission. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of events and the relationship between the parties to the lis are a matter of record. They would not require any iteration. The entire issue has now sprung from the registration of the complaint against the petitioners. The complaint infact is not the first one. The complainant had on an earlier occasion sought to register a crime and the husband undertook before the concerned Court that he or his family members would not use abusive language. The undertaking is as follows: "............... No any abusive and humiliating words .. one any my family members also no hilthy, bearing, punching, kicking, freaking my personal things and house hold things." (sic) - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 9. Be that as it may. Now the entire issue has sprung from the registration of the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows: " 15-10 2024 To, The Station House Officer Whitefield Women's Police Station Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560048. Sir, Subject: Complaint regarding infliction of cruelty and demand of dowry by Mr. Rahul Chandra, Mr. Ravishankar Sinha, Mrs. Sarita Sinha, Mrs. Supriya Shekhar, Mr. Swarnesh Shekhar, Mr. Abhimanyu Aditya and Mrs. Suchita Suchi. I, the undersigned Mrs. Shubham Shweta, W/o. Mr. Rahul Chandra, aged about 31 years, residing at No. flat no 410, Maa Nivasam, Kodigehalli Vijay vihar Banglore-560048 state the chain of events which have led to the filing of the present complaint: - 1. I state that I am filing the present Complaint seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and initiation of criminal proceedings against the following persons for the infliction of cruelty and harassment as against me, coupled with the demand of dowry, both of which are offences punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the details and facts pertaining to which shall be stated elaborately in the following parts of the present Complaint: - Mr. Rahul Chandra - my husband. (9886573561) - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 Mr. Ravishankar Sinha - my father-in-law. (9934045857) Mrs. Sarita Sinha - my mother-in-law. (7644936462) Mrs. Supriya Shekhar - my sister-in-law. (9559478384) Mr. Swarnesh Shekhar - my brother-in-law.(8698658924) Mr. Abhimanyu Aditya - my brother-in-law. (8587000956) Mrs. Suchita Suchi - my sister-in-law. (7838092977) 2. I state that I am constrained to prefer the present Complaint as against the aforesaid persons as a result of continuous cruelty, verbal, physical & mental harassment and repeated instances of threats to safety of my life and well-being that has been meted out upon me, primarily by my husband, however, also actively aided and abetted by my in-laws, right from the inception of my marriage. Being genuinely fearful of my life and well-being, as well as being aggrieved by the repeated instances of cruelty and abuse meted out upon me by my in-laws, I am filing the present Complaint for your kind consideration and suitable action from your end. The facts forming the basis of the present Complaint are as follows: - I. Demand for Dowry: I state that I got married to my husband, Mr. Rahul Chandra, in Muzaffarpur, Bihar, on 20.04.2022, upon following Hindu religious customs. I state that the same was an arranged marriage, that was conducted with the majority share of expenses having been borne by my parents. It is pertinent to note that my present in-laws were extremely adamant that the lion's share of the expenses of the wedding and all ceremonies be borne by my parents. It is also in line with this desire of my in-laws that my father and my family were forced to furnish dowry to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) in cash and Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) in the form of gold in favour of my husband's family. Copy of the Marriage Invitation Card in relation to my marriage with my husband is produced as Document No. 1. Copy of the jewellery bill, which - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 evidences the purchase of a portion of jewellery in furtherance of payment of dowry in favour of my husband's family is produced as Document No. 2. II. I state that it was because of excessive and relentless demands for dowry that my parents were forced to make payments in the form of cash and gold in the manner as stated above. III. Financial abandonment: Post marriage, I state that I continued to work from home in my job, which was a contract-based employment in a company based in Hyderabad. My husband, at that point in time was working for Siemens. Shortly after the aforesaid marriage, we moved to Bangalore in June 2022. Immediately upon shifting to Bangalore, differences started arising between my husband and myself over the smallest of issues all because of the insensitive attitude displayed by my husband. The said differences initially began in the form of lack of financial contribution by my husband, in respect of household expenses and other financial commitments of my own. I state that, every time where there arose requirement either on my part or pertaining to household expenses, which required my husband to contribute financially, he would flatly refuse and start throwing tantrums characterised by aggressive behaviour and short temper. I state that as a result of such situation, I myself had to take care of all the aforesaid expenses between July 2022 till January 2023, despite my contract in the above mentioned job having come to an end. Therefore, this marks the most vivid instance of financial abandonment by my husband. Unreasonable restrictions on movement: I also state that in addition to IV. Unreasonable restrictions on movement: I also state that in addition to financially abandoning me, my husband started placing unreasonable and draconian restrictions with regard to my movement. I was specifically threatened by my husband that I must not visit my maternal home as it would entail waste of time and - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 money and lead to unnecessary expenditure.I was told by my husband that if at all I had to travel, I ought to do it with my own money. I state that despite making multiple requests I was not allowed to visit my parents. In fact it is relevant to note that when I had specifically asked my husband to book tickets to visit my parents at Muzaffarpur after having visited my in laws house in Hajipur during first chhat puja after marriage, my husband, instead of having a conversation with me about the same, immediately called my mother in law, Mrs. Sarita Sinha, and began narrating the entire chain of events. It is at this stage that my mother in law would tutor my husband to speak ill about me and dissuade him from exceeding to my demands. I state that being influenced by the same my husband started abusing me in vulgar language and started manhandling me by pushing me to the wall and hitting me repeatedly. Such acts of violence also included my husband dramatically and unnecessarily throwing my mobile phone to the ground, all in order to prevent me from speaking to my own parents. In fact it is pertinent to state that my phone was broken 3 times by my husband in this phase alone. It is also necessary to state that when my grandmother passed away in April 2023 even at that point in time did not let me visit my family, they are restraining me from going anywhere. V. Complete neglect and abandonment during times of ill-health: I further state that in addition to the above, the cruelty meted out to me by my husband took another shape and form when during the end of 2022, my husband started completely neglecting me and my deteriorating health, thereby leading to worsening of my health. Around that time I was afflicted with various elements such as low Vitamin B12, Vitamin D, affliction of fatty liver and anaemia as a result of which I felt dizzy and weak. I state that instead of taking care of me my husband would insist that being the wife, it was my duty and obligation to clean the house, cook, do laundry and the dishes, irrespective of whether I was healthy or unhealthy. My demands for a house maid were rejected at the threshold and I was made to feel embarrassed for - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 even making such demands. In fact, my husband would resort to abusive gestures and words and he would constantly be little me, thereby forcing me to engage in household chores. In addition to my husband's objectionable behaviour, all of my in-laws as stated above only made things was by siding with my husband and thereby validating his behaviour of abuse and cruelty. They would say that being a male, my husband was not supposed to help me out in carrying out household chores and since I was a female, it was completely incumbent upon me, irrespective of the health of mine, to do household chores. VI. Forcible driving out of matrimonial home: I further state that, the aforementioned behaviour of my husband to completely neglect my health conditions only worsened in August 2023 when despite having acute cough and cold and a high fever my husband failed to take me to a doctor despite repeated requests and begging to this effect from my end. My husband would constantly be little me and demean me by stating that going to a doctor for the benefit of a person like me would only lead to a waste of money and time. In fact, despite it being evident that I was genuinely sick, my husband would try to undermine the medical status of mine by stating that all I do is sit at home, then how is it that I can fall sick. Since it became intolerable for me to live with my husband during such difficult times, I was forced to leave the matrimonial home and seek shelter at my brother's home in Hyderabad. It is only after having recovered a little from my medical elements that I was in a position to come back to Bangalore in September 2023. VII. Instances of verbal abuse: While the foregoing are demonstrable instances of abuse and cruelty meted by my husband upon me, the verbal abuse always remained concerted from day one. My husband would call me unparliamentary and profane terms such as "Kuthiya" (Dog), "gawaar" (Illiterate) etc., which had a direct impact on my mental wellbeing. I state that, when I would ask him to stop using such words, my husband would hold my hair, pulled my face to the wall and slap me repeatedly. Such kind of behaviour at the hands of my - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 husband slowly started increasing at around night time every day as a result of which I would never get proper sleep at night. As a result of such behaviour, I was forced to sleep in a separate room. My husband would ensure that such abusive behaviour ought to be meted out towards me more so during the night, as that would eventually affect my sleep overnight. I state that this is also one of the reasons as to why my health deteriorated in the manner that it did. VIII. Instances of verbal abuse at the hands of my mother-in-law: I state that, the aforementioned verbal abuse at the hands of my husband was also seconded and made worse by the utterances of my mother-in-law. Allegations were made against me by my mother in law that I am of no use and that my family is also of no use since we did not give in the form of dowry any dining table, sofa, car to my husband at the time of marriage. IX. Instances of physical assault: I state that one of the most abusive instances of my husband physically assaulting me took place in Goa on 02.10.2023. I further state that both my husband and I had gone to Goa on a work sponsored trip organised by my office. During the entirety of the set trip, my husband was constantly verbally abusing me and berating my father for not giving any money for booking a flat. When I tried to explain to him that my father was not in a position to provide any money because he is now retired from service, instead of accepting my statement and letting me take rest since I had high fever, my husband mercilessly beat me at around midnight on 02.10.2023. This unfortunate habit of laying his hands on me continued even after we returned to Bangalore, wherein, instead of taking care of me and taking me to a doctor owing to my fever, he again hit me badly on 06.10.2023. I state that the situation had got so bad that my brother had to intervene, as a result of which he came all the way from Hyderabad to Bangalore and took me to a doctor. It is at this stage that I was taken to Manipal Hospital with the assistance of my brother. It is upon the concerned doctor's examination and diagnosis that an MLC was registered. Simultaneously a complaint came to be filed as against my husband in Kadugodi - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 Police Station. However, it is upon the advice of elders in the family that I was persuaded to withdraw the said complaint on the score of the undertaking that my husband was pleased to provide, which was that he will never hit me again. Copy of the MLC dated 07.10.2023 registered by Manipal Hospital is produced as Document No. 3. X. However, not being satisfied and being extremely scared of my own wellbeing, I was forced to leave my own matrimonial home and once again was constrained to take shelter at my brother's home in Hyderabad. It is only after having recovered from the trauma occasioned at the hands of my husband a little bit, that we came back to my husband during the Diwali season of 2023. Being concerned for my safety, my brother also shifted to Bangalore so that he could constantly check on me. XI. Instances of physical assault upon my family members: It is pertinent to note that, in addition to physically abusing and assaulting me, my husband also took liberty to physically assault my brother as well. The said instance took place on 17.08.2024 when my husband picked a fight with my brother for no rhyme or reason as my brother came to visit me that night and then proceeded to unnecessarily involve our neighbours and guards by falsely concocting a story that my brother was trying to hurt him. However, not falling prey to the mala fide attempts of my husband, the said neighbours and caretakers quickly disbelieved my husband and want him to conduct himself properly towards my brother and myself. Not heading to the said advice of the neighbours and caretakers, my husband switched off the lights and cctv and started mercilessly slapping me and twisting my arm. Since my brother was there in order to intervene and save me from my husband, when my brother stepped in, my husband started hitting my brother and punched his face. At this point my brother ran outside of our home and immediately called the neighbours and placed a call to the Police at around 2:00 AM on 18.08.2024. Upon - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 receiving this call, the Police immediately rushed to our house and suggested that we go see a doctor and register a formal complaint against my husband. When we went to the hospital, Manipal Hospital, upon examination an MLC what is the registered on 18.08.2024. Copy of the MLC dated 18.08.2024 registered by Manipal Hospital is produced as Document No. 4. XII. In light of the above facts, I proceeded to the women police station at Whitefield and narrated the incidents that have taken place. At this juncture the police summoned my husband on 23.08.2024 and proceeded to conduct counselling between my husband and me. The outcome of the said counselling was an undertaking given by my husband dated 23.08.2024 wherein he undertook to take care of me come on my personal needs and my health as well as contributing to household expenditure; not resort to verbally abusing and humiliating me and my family members or to physically beat, assault or abuse me; and most importantly give me freedom to proceed and meet my family members and allow them to come home as they deem fit. Copy of the said undertaking is produced as Document No. 5. XIII. I state that despite the above, even in September 2024 physical and verbal abuse at the hands of my husband has continued unabated. In fact, when my father came to Bangalore on 27th September to my brother's place in order to speak to my husband and his parents as they are also in Bangalore. On 28th sept my husband took me and my father to show the flat which he has taken in Garuda Grand in block B on 3rd floor which is under construction as it becomes relevant to note that my husband started arguing with me in my father's presence and pushed me on one occasion in order to cause grievous hurt to me, while returning near the staircase, When my father intervened, my husband started manhandling my father and hit him on his face and chest. As a result of this my father's nose started bleeding and his glasses broke. As we came down and called the police who told us to go to doctor for treatment to us, we were forced to avail treatment at the Vydehi - 17 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 hospital and doctor did our MLC, dated 28/09/24 which is at Kadugodi PS. I further state that in this regard, upon a complaint being given by my father as against my husband the Kadugodi police station was pleased to register an FIR bearing Cr. No. 548/2024 as against my husband for various offences punishable under the BNS. 3. Therefore, in light of the above narration of facts, it is evident that the husband of mine has been constantly and relentlessly causing abuse and cruelty upon me and I therefore call upon you to appropriately register an FIR against him for offences punishable under the BNS and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. As regards the role played by my in-laws is concerned, it is obvious that all of them have only harboured and sheltered my husband and have only encouraged him in order to commit these atrocities upon me and my family. As a result it is only but evident that all of them should also be proceeded against under the provisions of BNS and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1964. The multiple text messages and conversations had with my father in law, copies of which are produced in the present Complaint, only go to show that despite bringing all of the abusive and cruel acts of my husband to his knowledge, he has taken no action and has kept quiet. In fact, my father-in-law would actively coerce me to live separately and away from the family. The same only indicates equal responsibility on his part to the barbaric acts of my husband. As stated earlier, my mother in law has on multiple occasions been abusive towards me, has tutored my husband in order to inflict more pain and misery upon me and has continued to be little me and my family on one pretext or the other. My sisters-in-law and my brothers-in-law have only facilitated reacts of my husband. As a result of the same, all of them also must be proceeded against. 4. In view of the above and the fact that the offences committed by my husband and his family members are cognisable offences, it is imperative and urgent that you goodself register a First Information Report under the provisions of the BNSS, 2023, against the said persons for the commission of the offences as described above and further grant me police protection from the said persons." - 18 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 10. The complaint, even if it is perused in its entirety, does not indicate an iota of offence against accused Nos.4 to 7. They are relatives of accused No.1 - husband, who have no role to play in the affairs between the husband or the wife. They are without any rhyme or reason dragged into the web of proceedings. Therefore, permitting further investigation against those persons, who are not even connected to the family of accused No.1 and the complainant would on the face of it, become patent injustice. Therefore, that investigation must be obliterated. Who remain in the fray is accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e., the mother-in-law and the father-in-law. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has strenuously contended that there are specific overt acts against accused No.2 - the mother-in-law and accused No.3 - the father-in-law. He takes this Court through the threadbare narration in the complaint. The threadbare narration so taken to by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 was would not meet what is necessary as ingredients for Section 85 of the BNS, 2023, which is Section 498A of the earlier regime - the IPC, as it is vague statements of cruelty or even specific statements of cruelty that is - 19 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 narrated, but they are infact instances that are vague. Mere quarrel with the mother-in-law or mere quarrel with the father- in-law cannot be elevated to the status of cruelty, as defined under Section 498A of the ICP which is now Section 85 of the BNS, 2023. Therefore, permitting further proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 3 as well would in the considered view of this Court, become an abuse of the process of the law. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court and the High Court of Karnataka in the cases of CHARUL SHUKLA V. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS1, BELLAYYA AND OTHERS V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER2 and GEDDAM JHANSI AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS3. 11. There can be no qualm about the principles so laid down by the Apex Court in those judgments. The judgments are rendered on the facts obtaining in each of the cases. 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 476 2 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 2594 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263 - 20 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 12. The facts obtaining in the case at hand would not in the considered view as observed hereinabove, necessitate permission of investigation to be taken as the Apex Court in the case of DR. SUSHIL KUMAR PURBEY v. STATE OF BIHAR4, wherein it is held as follows: “…. …. …. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the parties and upon a careful perusal of the material on record, we are of the view that the High Court fell into error in restricting the quashing of criminal proceedings only to the sister-in-law (Respondent 3). A comparative reading of the FIR reveals that the allegations levelled against the sister-in-law and those against the present appellants are, in all material particulars, identical. The FIR does not assign any specific or overt act to either appellant; there are no particular dates, places, or individual acts attributed to them. The lone allegation that stands separately against the present appellants is that they would quarrel. This, however, does not constitute a criminal offence and cannot, by itself, sustain cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 498A & 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Act for which the appellants have been summoned. The standard applied by the High Court in quashing proceedings against the sister-in- law, on the ground that the allegations against her were general and omnibus, applies with equal force to the present appellants, and there is no principled basis for distinguishing between them. 8. It is further pertinent to note that the marriage was solemnised in July 2019, and the husband filed the divorce petition as early as March 2021. The criminal complaint against the appellants was, however, lodged only 4 2026 SCC OnLine SC 338 - 21 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 in March 2022, nearly a year after the filing of the divorce petition. Though this delay, standing alone, would not constitute a sufficient ground for quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellants. However, viewed in conjunction with the absence of any specific allegations attributable to them, the delay lends credence to the submission that the criminal complaint against the in-laws may have been instituted by way of a counter-blast to the divorce proceedings initiated by the husband. When these two considerations are read together, we are satisfied that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present appellants cannot be sustained. 9. Before moving forward, we consider it necessary to clarify that the observations made hereinabove are confined to the question of the maintainability of the criminal proceedings against the present appellants, and must not be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case as a whole. The criminal proceedings against the husband shall continue in accordance with law. We note, in this context, that the husband did not seek quashing of the proceedings against him before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC; it was only the present appellants and the sister-in-law who did so. The husband is also not before this Court in the present appeal. We therefore find no occasion to comment upon the allegations levelled against him, and the proceedings against him shall be governed by law. 10. In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court erred in applying different standards to persons who stand on an identical footing insofar as the nature of the allegations against them is concerned. Since the allegations against the present appellants and the sister-in-law are, in substance, the same, the reasoning that led the High Court to quash the proceedings against the sister-in-law ought equally to have led to the quashing of proceedings against the present appellants. The impugned order, to the extent that it declined to extend such relief to the appellants, cannot be sustained.” - 22 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 13. The Apex Court in the case of DR. SUSHIL KUMAR PURBEY (supra) holds that mere quarrel of the daughter-in- law with the mother-in-law or the father-in-law cannot be elevated to the status of cruelty as obtaining under Section 498A of the IPC. 14. The Apex Court reiterated the principles that was laid down by it in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR5, wherein, it is held as follows: “Issue involved 10. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the appellants and respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the appellant in-laws are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed? 11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498-AIPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted 5 (2022) 6 SCC 599 or 2022 SCC Online SC 162 - 23 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as Section 498-AIPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. [Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472: (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 301] , has observed : (SCC pp. 478-79, para 14) “14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act 46 of 1983. The expression “cruelty” in Section 498-A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. [Explanation to Section 498-A.] It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualised. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.” 13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273: (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4) “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a - 24 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36) “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498- AIPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. - 25 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741: (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21) “21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para 12) - 26 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 ‘12. … There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.’ The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.” 16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6) “6. … The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result - 27 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in- laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that “all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy”. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution. 19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR Respondent 1 i.e. the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the learned Principal Judge, Purnea, to not harass the respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 1-4-2019, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11-12-2017. 20. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate - 28 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the appellant in-laws would simply result in an abuse of the process of law. 21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. The Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR (supra) has delineated the principles of drawing the other members of the family, who have nothing to do with the offences. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the mother-in-law and the father-in-law did not reside with accused No.1 and the complainant as a family, but they did reside separately. This is an admitted fact. On all these factors, if investigation is permitted, it would run foul of - 29 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010729102024 NC: 2026:KHC:39734 CRL.P No. 14478 of 2024 plethora of judgments, few of which are quoted hereinabove and would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned is disposed as withdrawn. (ii) The petition insofar as petitioner Nos.2 to 7 are concerned is allowed. (iii) Proceedings pending in Crime No.45/2024 stands quashed qua petitioner Nos.2 to 7 - accused Nos.2 to 7. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5