- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006872024 NC: 2026:KHC:52372 CRL.P No. 266 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 266 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SAMPATH SHETTY S/O MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.14, MMG LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA, BOGADHI, MYSURU - 570 026 2. SMT. N. SHRIMATHI W/O SRI. SAMPATH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO 14, MMG LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BOGADHI, MYSURU - 570 026 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAHILA POLICE STATION, DEVARAJ CIRCLE, MYSURU CITY - 570005 REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006872024 NC: 2026:KHC:52372 CRL.P No. 266 of 2024 2. SMT. THEJASHWINI Y.R W/O RAGHAVENDRA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.136, MANGALA ROAD, BEHIND SRI. SHARADA PUBLIC SCHOOL, R.T NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESHA P, HCGP FOR R1, R2-SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN C.C.NO.424/2022 BEFORE THE HONBLE 7TH A.S.C.J AND JMFC COURT, MYSURU CITY AS PER ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.424/2022 (arising out of Crime No.39/2021) pending on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the petitioners. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006872024 NC: 2026:KHC:52372 CRL.P No. 266 of 2024 2. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of respondent No.2-complainant, who is the wife of accused No.1. 3. The factual matrix of the case, as borne out from the records, is that respondent No.2 married accused No.1 – Raghavendra Kumar on 14.10.2007 and the said marriage was a love marriage, only in the presence of the petitioners since the parents of respondent No.2 were against the said marriage. Thereafter, she resided with them. Though their marriage was cordial for two years and they were blessed with a baby boy in the year 2010, it is alleged that accused No.1 developed extramarital affairs with other women and subjected respondent No.2 to both physical and mental harassment and when the same was brought to the notice of the petitioners, instead of advising accused No.1, they supported his act. Left with no other option, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before respondent No.1 – police, which came to be registered in Crime No.39/2021. After completion of investigation, the police laid the charge sheet against accused No.1 – husband, as well as the present petitioners, for the aforesaid offences. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006872024 NC: 2026:KHC:52372 CRL.P No. 266 of 2024 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP. However, though notice is served, respondent No.2 remained unrepresented. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would primarily contend that, on a perusal of the complaint and the charge sheet materials in their entirety, there are no specific allegations whatsoever against the petitioners, except the general and omnibus allegation that they did not advise accused No.1, their son in respect of his extramarital affairs. It is further contended that even the statements of the witnesses do not substantiate such allegation against the petitioners. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition. 6. However, the prayer sought for in the petition is opposed by the learned HCGP contending that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been laid against the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006872024 NC: 2026:KHC:52372 CRL.P No. 266 of 2024 petitioners. It is therefore contended that there is prima facie material available on record against the petitioners to proceed with the case. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners so also the learned HCGP and perused the material on record. 8. As could be gathered from the records, the marriage between respondent No.2 and accused No.1 was a love marriage in the year 2007 in the presence of the petitioners since the parents of respondent No.2 were against the said marriage, and thereafter, she resided with them. It is alleged that since accused No.1 developed an extramarital affair with other women and harassed respondent No.2 both physically and mentally and though respondent No.2 requested the petitioners to advise their son with regard to the same, instead of advising him, they supported him, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against them. However, on a careful perusal of the entire charge sheet material, except for general, omnibus and hearsay allegations, no specific allegation is forthcoming against the petitioners. The allegations made against them are - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006872024 NC: 2026:KHC:52372 CRL.P No. 266 of 2024 not supported by any specific incident, date or overt act. Even the statements of the witnesses do not substantiate the said allegations. 9. 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 - 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. 10. 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 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 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006872024 NC: 2026:KHC:52372 CRL.P No. 266 of 2024 in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arise from a matrimonial dispute. 11. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayan vs. State of Telangana - 2025 3 SCC 735, held in para 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 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. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006872024 NC: 2026:KHC:52372 CRL.P No. 266 of 2024 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.” 12. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.424/2022 (arising out of Crime - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006872024 NC: 2026:KHC:52372 CRL.P No. 266 of 2024 No.39/2021) pending on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Mysuru, insofar as the petitioners are concerned for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25