- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010181302024 NC: 2026:KHC:50235 CRL.P No. 2943 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2943 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MR SUNIL BHOJA SHETTY S/O BHOJA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT PAYLESHIYAL HEIGHT A WING, FLAT NO 1103 CHANDIVELI, FORM ROAD, SANGHARSH NAGAR POOVAYI, ANDHERI POORVA, AHMEDNAGAR, MAHARASHTRA 72 2. SMT USHA D/O BHOJA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT PAYLESHIYAL HEIGHT A WING, FLAT NO 1103 CHANDIVELI, FORM ROAD, SANGHARSH NAGAR POOVAYI, ANDHERI POORVA, AHMEDNAGAR, MAHARASHTRA 72 3. SMT SUPRIYA D/O BHOJA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT PAYLESHIYAL HEIGHT A WING, FLAT NO 1103 CHANDIVELI, FORM ROAD, SANGHARSH NAGAR POOVAYI, ANDHERI POORVA, AHMEDNAGAR, MAHARASHTRA 72 Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010181302024 NC: 2026:KHC:50235 CRL.P No. 2943 of 2024 4. SMT PREMA W/O BHOJA SHETTY(HUSBAND) AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT PAYLESHIYAL HEIGHT A WING, FLAT NO 1103 CHANDIVELI, FORM ROAD, SANGHARSH NAGAR POOVAYI, ANDHERI POORVA, AHMEDNAGAR, MAHARASHTRA 72 5. MR BHOJA SHETTY S/O LATE SUBBU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT PAYLESHIYAL HEIGHT A WING, FLAT NO 1103 CHANDIVELI, FORM ROAD, SANGHARSH NAGAR POOVAYI, ANDHERI POORVA, AHMEDNAGAR, MAHARASHTRA 72 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ABISHEK MARLA M.J, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAPU POLICE STATION, UDUPI REPRESENT BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001 2. SMT SHRUTHI S SHETTY D/O RAJU SHETTY, AGED 30 YEARS, R/AT "SUBRAMANYA CHAYA" DENDOOR KATTE MANIPURA POST UDUPI TALUK-576 120 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESHA P HCGP FOR R1, SRI. L.S. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010181302024 NC: 2026:KHC:50235 CRL.P No. 2943 of 2024 PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5) PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI IN C.C.NO.667/2020, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 504, 506, 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT (ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.667/2020, arising out of Crime No.56/2019, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, presently pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with petitioner No.1/accused No.1 on 04.05.2016 at Udupi. At the time of marriage, the petitioners demanded gold ornaments worth Rs.15,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry. Accordingly, the parents of respondent No.2 complied the demands of the petitioners. After marriage, respondent No.2 started to reside with accused - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010181302024 NC: 2026:KHC:50235 CRL.P No. 2943 of 2024 Nos.1 to 5 in her matrimonial home at Mumbai. It is stated that the relationship between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was cordial for a period of three months. Thereafter, the petitioners started to harass respondent No.2 both physically and mentally and subjected her to domestic violence by neglecting her in the matrimonial home. As such, finally, due to unbearable torture, respondent No.2 left the matrimonial home on 21.09.2016. Ever since then, she is residing in her parental house at Udupi. As such, she filed a private complaint before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Udupi in PCR No.16/2018. The learned Magistrate referred the matter to the jurisdictional Police i.e., respondent No.1 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 3. The respondent No.1-Police registered the case against the petitioners in Crime No.56/2019 dated 22.04.2019 for the aforementioned offences. Subsequently after investigation, respondent No.1-Police laid charge sheet against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred this petition to quash the proceedings initiated against them. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010181302024 NC: 2026:KHC:50235 CRL.P No. 2943 of 2024 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1. 5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners primarily contended that, in the private complaint, no such specific allegations were made against the petitioners, except some omnibus allegations. According to him, respondent No.2 stayed with petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5 only for a period of four months and thereafter, she voluntarily left the matrimonial home. He further contended that, subsequently divorce petition has been filed by accused No.1 against her and the said divorce petition was allowed and thereafter, respondent No.2 married one Pradeep and presently, she is residing with him in her matrimonial home. He also contended that the case filed under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act has been withdrawn by respondent No.2. In such circumstances, he submits that this private complaint is filed by respondent No.2, out of vengeance, in order to harass the petitioners. With these submissions, he prays to allow the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010181302024 NC: 2026:KHC:50235 CRL.P No. 2943 of 2024 6. Per contra, learned HCGP opposed the prayer on the ground that now respondent No.1-Police have filed charge sheet against the petitioners and the statement of witnesses reveals that the charge sheeted offences attract against the petitioners. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submission and the documents placed on record. 8. As could be gathered from records, respondent No.2 married petitioner No.1 on 04.05.2016 and she resided at her matrimonial home till 21.09.2016 i.e., for a period of four months. On perusal of the private complaint and charge sheet allegations, except some omnibus allegation that the petitioners insulted her at the matrimonial home, no such specific averments were made in respect of physical and mental harassment meted out by the petitioners to her. Further, the private complaint also does not disclose the specific date, time and place, where the petitioners harassed her. Moreover, the Domestic Violence case filed by her in Crl. Misc.No.350/2017 has been closed as not pressed. The order sheet reveals that - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010181302024 NC: 2026:KHC:50235 CRL.P No. 2943 of 2024 "the petitioner i.e., respondent No.2 is not interested to continue the petition, hence prayed for close the case". Accordingly, the case was closed. Further, the documents placed by the petitioners reveal that after obtaining divorce, respondent No.2 married one Pradeep and presently, she is residing at her matrimonial home. Further, as discussed supra, except some omnibus allegations against the petitioners, no specific averment is made in the private complaint and in the statement of witnesses. In such circumstance, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Subba Rao vs. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and Others reported in 2024 INSC 960, has held that the Court 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 instance of their involvement in the crime are made out. 9. It is also settled position of law that if a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010181302024 NC: 2026:KHC:50235 CRL.P No. 2943 of 2024 criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. The Courts pose a duty to subject the allegation levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, whether there is any gain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arise from a matrimonial dispute. 10. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayan vs. State of Telangana reported in 2025 3 SCC 735, held in paragraph Nos.25 and 28 as under: “25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010181302024 NC: 2026:KHC:50235 CRL.P No. 2943 of 2024 cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.” 11. In the instant case, a bare perusal of charge sheet materials clearly disclose that the allegations made by the complainant/respondent No.2 against the petitioners are vague - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010181302024 NC: 2026:KHC:50235 CRL.P No. 2943 of 2024 and omnibus. There is no such allegation that the petitioners harassed respondent No.2. The complainant has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has not mentioned the time, date, place or a manner in which the alleged harassment occurred or its particulars. Therefore, the charge sheet lacks concrete and precise allegations against the petitioners. The mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specific details would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings against any person. 12. It is settled position of law that, Courts have to be careful and cautious in dealing with complaint and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial disputes, where the allegations have to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of Court. 13. Hence, even if the entire allegations in the charge sheet are taken on its face value, there is no such prima facie case made out against the petitioners. As such, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 is - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010181302024 NC: 2026:KHC:50235 CRL.P No. 2943 of 2024 nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.667/2020, arising out of Crime No.56/2019, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, presently pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, are hereby quashed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9