- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11668 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NITHIN A.S. S/O SRI. ANNE SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.382, DUO MARVEL LAYOUT, RAMAGODANAHALLI ROAD, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560 064. 2. SRI. ANNE SHIVA KUMAR S/O ANNE VISHWANATHAPPA, AGED 66 YEARS, 3. SMT. CHENNAVEERAMMA W/O ANNE SHIVA KUMAR, AGED 66 YEARS, 4. SRI. PRAMUKH A.S. S/O SRI. ANNE SHIVAKUMAR, AGED 27 YEARS, THE PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.4202/12, 7TH B MAIN, VIVEKANANDA BADAVANE, DAVANAGERE-577 004. 5. MRS. VINDHYA W/O SRI. SRIHARI POOLA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT 3473N, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 1ST ST APT277, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA-95134 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PADMAVATHI N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION, YELAHANKA SUB-DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. PAVITHRA S. W/O NITHIN A.S., D/O SRINIVASA S., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.382, SRINIDHI NILAYA, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, DUO MARVEL LAYOUT, RAMAGONDANAHALLI, YALAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SHAIKH SAWOOD, ADVOCATE FOR 2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.343/2024, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 506, 34 OF IPC AND 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE 7TH ACMM COURT AT BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.343/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Heard Smt. Padmavathi N. learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for respondent No.1, Sri Shaikh Sawood, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. They are the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in- law and sister-in-law of respondent No.2/complainant, respectively. The complainant and accused No.1 get married on 13.02.2022. It transpires that the relationship between the complainant and her husband/accused No.1 flounders. On floundering of such relationship, a complaint comes to be registered by the wife against the husband and other members - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 of the family, which is registered in Crime No.343/2024. The police, after investigation, file a charge sheet. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 4. This Court, owing to the fact of indiscriminate drawing of other members of the family into the web of crime, had granted an interim order of stay only against accused Nos.2 to 5. The proceedings were permitted to be continued against the husband/accused No.1. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition, would seek to demonstrate that the allegations against accused Nos.2 to 5, even if it is taken on its face value, would not amount to any offence that would become punishable under Section 498A or otherwise. The learned counsel would illustrate that accused No.5 who has been living in the United States of America for the last 20 years has also been drawn into the web of crime, to demonstrate the abuse of the process of the law. She would seek quashment of the proceedings against the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 accused Nos.2 to 5, and submit that the husband is facing trial and he would continue to face trial. 6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant would vehemently refute the submission in contending that the police have filed the charge sheet and in the light of filing of the charge sheet, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial and seeks dismissal of the petition. 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, relation between the parties, are a matter of record. It would not require any iteration. Since the entire issue has now sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows: “ರವೆ ಆರಕ ೕಕರು ಯಲಹಂಕ ೕ ಾೆ, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 ಯಲಹಂಕ, ೆಂಗಳರು. ಇಂದ ೕಮ ಪ!ತ ಎ $ೋಂ & ಎ.ಎ., 33 yrs, ನಂ.382, 1(ೇ )ೖ&, 3(ೇ $ಾ, +,ೕ -ಾ.ೆ/0 1ೇಔ3, ಯಲಹಂಕ ನೂ4 5ೌ&, 7ಾಮೊಂಡನಹ9: ರ;ೆ<, ೆಂಗಳರು. Ph:- 9148963559 Balija. -ಾನ47ೇ, !ಷಯ: ನನ> ಗಂಡ & ಎ.ಎ (?ೈ0 ಸಂAೆ4 9535560260/9900597698), ನನ> -ಾವ ಅೆC ವಕು-ಾD (?ೈ0 ಸಂAೆ4 9449066608), ನನ> ಅEೆ< ೕಮ ಚನ>!ೕರಮG (?ೈ0 ಸಂAೆ4 8792674754), ನನ> )ೖHಾ ಪಮುI (?ೈ0 ಸಂAೆ4 6362659522), ನನ> ಗಂಡನ Jಯ ಅಕK ಎ.ಎ&.!ಂLಾ4(?ೈ0 ಸಂAೆ4+13102663401), ಇವರುಗMೆಲNರೂ ವರದOೆ ಹಣ$ಾKQ -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ HೈJಕ.ಾQ ತುಂಾ Sರುಕುಳ ಮತು< Jಂ;ೆ ೕ+ರುವ ಬೆU $ಾನೂನು ೕಯ ಸೂಕ< ಕಮ ಜರುQಸಲು $ೋ ಸNRದ WXಾ/ದು. ******** )ೕಲKಂಡ YXಾ/Zೆ ಸಂಬಂ[RದಂEೆ ತಮG ಘನ ಸ >LಾನದN ]ಾ^/R$ೊಳ_:ವ`Hೇ(ೆಂದ7ೆ ೕಮ ಪ!ತ ಎ a& ಎ. ೕ .ಾಸ, Eಾb : ಜಯಮG, ರವರು ಮೂರ(ೇ ಮಗMಾQದುc ಮೂಲತಃ -ಾಲೂನ 5ೌ&, ರುಮಲ ಬeಾವೆಯN .ಾಸ.ಾQದುc ನನ> ಮದು.ೆ fEಾಥ/ Hಾವಣೆ7ೆ ಮೂಲ.ಾRಗMಾದ hಾ .ಾಸ : ೆಂಗಳರು .ಾRಗMಾದ & ಎ.ಎ. ರವ7ೊijೆ ಅವರ ತಂHೆ ಅೆC ವಕು-ಾD, Eಾb ಚನ>!ೕರಮG ರವರುಗಳ, Jಯರು, ಉಭಯ ಕುಟುಂಬಸnರ ಸಮಮ Z(ಾಂಕ 02-12-2021 ರಂದು ೕ ಪHಾGವ ಕ(ೆoನp& hಾ0, -ಾಲೂರು, 5ೌ& ನN ನeೆZರುತ<Hೆ. ತದನಂತರ !.ಾಹ ಆರತEೆ Z(ಾಂಕ 12-02-2022 ರಂದು ಮತು< 13-02-2022 ರಂದು !.ಾಹ ಮುಹೂತ/ & ಎ.ಎ. ರವ7ೊijೆ Jಂದೂ ಧಮ/ದ ಸಂಪHಾಯದಂEೆ rಾ;ೋಕ<.ಾQ ಆD.ಆD.ಕ(ೆo& ಷ& hಾ0, ೕ sೇತ $ೈ.ಾರ, tಕKಬMಾ:ಪ`ರ u1ೆNಯN ಉಭಯ ಕುಟುಂಬಸnರ ಸಮುGಖದN ಜರುQರುತ<Hೆ. ಆ ಸಮಯದN ನನ> ಗಂಡ ಮತು< ನನ> ಗಂಡನ ತಂHೆ-Eಾb, ವರದOೆಾQ ೇ+$ೆ ಇijದುc ಅದರಂEೆ ನಮG ತಂHೆಯವರು ನನ> ಗಂಡ & ಎ.ಎ. ರವೆ ಬಂಾರದ ಕತು< wೈ&, ಬಂಾರದ ಾ 1ೈ3, ಬಂಾರದ ಉಂಗುರ, ೆ1ೆಾಳ_ವ ಸೂ3 hಾಗೂ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 ಇತ7ೆ ೆ1ೆಾಳ_ವ ವಸು<ಗಳನು> ೕ+ರುEಾ<7ೆ. hಾಗೂ ನನೆ ಬಂಾರದ ಕ<ನ hಾರ. ಬಂಾರದ (ೆx1ೆ, ಬಂಾರದ S!ಓ1ೆ, ಬಂಾರದ ಉಂಗುರ hಾಗೂ ಇEಾ4Z ೆ1ೆಾಳ_ವ ವಸು<ಗಳನು> ಮತು< ಮ(ೆ ಗೃಹಬಳ$ೆ ವಸು<ಗಳನು> ನಮG ತಂHೆ-Eಾb hಾಗೂ ಅಣCಂZರು ೕ+ರುEಾ<7ೆ, ಅದೂcXಾQ ಮದು.ೆ -ಾ+$ೊijರುEಾ<7ೆ. ನನ> ಮದು.ೆXಾದ )ೕ1ೆ (ಾನು ನನ> ಗಂಡನ ಮ(ೆXಾದ )ೕಲKಂಡ !MಾಸದN .ಾಸ!ರುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ. ಸು-ಾರು ಮೂರು ಂಗಳ $ಾಲ ನನ> ಗಂಡ(ೊಂZೆ .ೈ.ಾJಕ uೕವನ wೆ(ಾ>Qರುತ<Hೆ. ನನ> ಗಂಡ & ಎ.ಎ. hೆಸರಘಟjದN ಸ$ಾ/ Jಯ ಪಶು .ೈHಾ4[$ಾXಾQ $ೆಲಸ ವ/JRರುEಾ<7ೆ. ನನ> ಗಂಡನು ಅವರ ತಂHೆ-Eಾb hಾಗೂ ತಮG, ಅಕK ರವರ -ಾತುಗಳನು> $ೇ9$ೊಂಡು hಾಗೂ ನನ> ಅEೆ<--ಾವ, )ೖದುನ ಪಮುI, ನನ> ಗಂಡನ ಅಕKರವರುಗಳ_ ;ೇ$ೊಂಡು ನನೆ ಅ(ಾವಶ4ಕ.ಾQ !(ಾ$ಾರಣ ೈಯು4ವ`ದು, ಮXಾ/Hೆ ಇಲNHೆ ನeೆದು$ೊಳ_:ವ`ದು -ಾಡು<ರುEಾ<7ೆ. ನನೆ Xಾ$ೆ ಈ ೕ Eೊಂದ7ೆ$ೊಡು<ೕ ಎಂದು $ೇಳ1ಾQದc$ೆK “ “ “ “ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ, , , , ೕನು ೕನು ೕನು ೕನು ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ;ಾibಲN ;ಾibಲN ;ಾibಲN ;ಾibಲN, , , , $ೆಲಸ$ೆK $ೆಲಸ$ೆK $ೆಲಸ$ೆK $ೆಲಸ$ೆK hೋQ hೋQ hೋQ hೋQ wೆ(ಾ>Q wೆ(ಾ>Q wೆ(ಾ>Q wೆ(ಾ>Q ಸಂಬಳ ಸಂಬಳ ಸಂಬಳ ಸಂಬಳ ತರುವ ತರುವ ತರುವ ತರುವ ಹುಡುQ ಹುಡುQ ಹುಡುQ ಹುಡುQ ಇಷj ಇಷj ಇಷj ಇಷj ಇತು< ಇತು< ಇತು< ಇತು< ಆದ7ೆ ಆದ7ೆ ಆದ7ೆ ಆದ7ೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ೕನು ೕನು ೕನು ೕನು ಇಷj ಇಷj ಇಷj ಇಷj ಇರಲN ಇರಲN ಇರಲN ಇರಲN.” .” .” .” ನೆ ನೆ ನೆ ನೆ ಮXಾ/Hೆ ಮXಾ/Hೆ ಮXಾ/Hೆ ಮXಾ/Hೆ $ೊಡುವ`ದು $ೊಡುವ`ದು $ೊಡುವ`ದು $ೊಡುವ`ದು $ೆಲಸ$ೆK $ೆಲಸ$ೆK $ೆಲಸ$ೆK $ೆಲಸ$ೆK hೋ hೋ hೋ hೋQQQQ ಸಂಬಳ ಸಂಬಳ ಸಂಬಳ ಸಂಬಳ ತಂದ7ೆ ತಂದ7ೆ ತಂದ7ೆ ತಂದ7ೆ -ಾತ -ಾತ -ಾತ -ಾತ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ & & & & -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ HೈJಕ.ಾQ HೈJಕ.ಾQ HೈJಕ.ಾQ HೈJಕ.ಾQ ತುಂಾ ತುಂಾ ತುಂಾ ತುಂಾ Sರುಕುಳ Sರುಕುಳ Sರುಕುಳ Sರುಕುಳ $ೊಡುವ $ೊಡುವ $ೊಡುವ $ೊಡುವ ]ಾರಂ}Rದನು ]ಾರಂ}Rದನು ]ಾರಂ}Rದನು ]ಾರಂ}Rದನು.... ನನ> ಗಂಡ & """"(ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು ಸ$ಾ/ ಸ$ಾ/ ಸ$ಾ/ ಸ$ಾ/ (ೌಕರ (ೌಕರ (ೌಕರ (ೌಕರ"""" ನನ> ;ಾiೆ ಮG ಮ(ೆbಂದ ವರದOೆ ಹಣ ರೂ. 50,00,000/- (ಐವತು< ಲ) ಹಣವನು> Eೆೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಾ ಇಲNZದc7ೆ ಇHೇ ೕ ನೆ ಮXಾ/Hೆ $ೊಡುವ`ZಲN ಎಂದು Sರುಕುಳ $ೊijರುEಾ<7ೆ. ಆ ನಂತರ ನನ> ಅEೆ< -ಾವ ಮತು< )ೖದುನ Hಾವಣೆ7ೆbಂದ ಬಂದು )ೕಲKಂಡ !Mಾಸ ೆಂಗಳನN ನಮG •ೊEೆ ಒಂದು ಂಗಳ_ಗಳ $ಾಲ ಇರುEಾ<7ೆ. ಆ ಸಮಯದN ನಮG ಅEೆ< -ಾವನವರು ನನ> ಮಗನು "$ಾN-1" ಆWೕಸD ಅವನ ;ೆjೕಟ ೇ7ೆ ಇHೆ ಮG ಕುಟುಂಬದವೆ ಅದರ ೆ1ೆ ೊ<ಲN, ಅದು ಮೆ ಅಥ/ ಆಗಲN, ಈಗಲೂ ಸಹ ನನ> ಮಗ ೆ hೆಣುC $ೊeೋ Eಾb-ತಂHೆಯರು ನಮG ಮ(ೆ ಮುಂHೆ $ೆ.ಎ.ಎ, ಐ.ಎ.ಎ ಹುHೆcಯNರುವವರು ಬಂದು ೇ$ಾದಷುj tನ>, ಹಣ, $ಾರು, ಬಂಗ1ೆ ೕಡಲು RದcHಾc7ೆ. ಆದ7ೆ ನಮG ಗಹwಾರ ಕ•GXಾQ ಮG ಸಂಬಂಧ ೆMೆR$ೊಂ+, hೋಗ ಮG ತವರು ಮ(ೆbಂದ ರೂ.50.00.000/-(ಐವತು< ಲ) ಹಣವನು> Eೆೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಾ ಎಂದು ನನ> ಗಂಡ hಾಗೂ ಅEೆ< -ಾವ, )ೖದುನ 9RರುEಾ<7ೆ. ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಂಗಳ ಂಗಳ ಂಗಳ ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ಅEೆ< ಅEೆ< ಅEೆ< ಅEೆ< -ಾವ -ಾವ -ಾವ -ಾವ Hಾವಣೆ7ೆೆ Hಾವಣೆ7ೆೆ Hಾವಣೆ7ೆೆ Hಾವಣೆ7ೆೆ .ಾಪಸು‚ .ಾಪಸು‚ .ಾಪಸು‚ .ಾಪಸು‚ hೋQರುEಾ<7ೆ hೋQರುEಾ<7ೆ hೋQರುEಾ<7ೆ hೋQರುEಾ<7ೆ. . . . ಅವರು ಅವರು ಅವರು ಅವರು hೋದ hೋದ hೋದ hೋದ )ೕ1ೆ )ೕ1ೆ )ೕ1ೆ )ೕ1ೆ ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಮ(ೆಯN ಮ(ೆಯN ಮ(ೆಯN ಮ(ೆಯN ತುಂಾ ತುಂಾ ತುಂಾ ತುಂಾ ಗ1ಾ5ೆ ಗ1ಾ5ೆ ಗ1ಾ5ೆ ಗ1ಾ5ೆ -ಾಡುEಾ<(ೆ -ಾಡುEಾ<(ೆ -ಾಡುEಾ<(ೆ -ಾಡುEಾ<(ೆ. . . . ಮ(ೆೆ ಮ(ೆೆ ಮ(ೆೆ ಮ(ೆೆ Zನಬಳ$ೆ Zನಬಳ$ೆ Zನಬಳ$ೆ Zನಬಳ$ೆ ಅಗತ4 ಅಗತ4 ಅಗತ4 ಅಗತ4 ವಸು<ಗಳನು> ವಸು<ಗಳನು> ವಸು<ಗಳನು> ವಸು<ಗಳನು> Xಾವ`ದೂ Xಾವ`ದೂ Xಾವ`ದೂ Xಾವ`ದೂ ತರHೇ ತರHೇ ತರHೇ ತರHೇ ಮ(ೆ ಮ(ೆ ಮ(ೆ ಮ(ೆ ಜ.ಾಾc ಜ.ಾಾc ಜ.ಾಾc ಜ.ಾಾc ಸಂಪƒಣ/ ಸಂಪƒಣ/ ಸಂಪƒಣ/ ಸಂಪƒಣ/ ಮ7ೆರುEಾ<7ೆ ಮ7ೆರುEಾ<7ೆ ಮ7ೆರುEಾ<7ೆ ಮ7ೆರುEಾ<7ೆ. . . . ಆಆಆಆ ಸಂದಭ/ದN ಸಂದಭ/ದN ಸಂದಭ/ದN ಸಂದಭ/ದN - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 ೇ7ೆ ೇ7ೆ ೇ7ೆ ೇ7ೆ -ಾಗ/!ಲNHೇ -ಾಗ/!ಲNHೇ -ಾಗ/!ಲNHೇ -ಾಗ/!ಲNHೇ ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ತಂHೆ ತಂHೆ ತಂHೆ ತಂHೆ----Eಾb Eಾb Eಾb Eಾb ಮ(ೆಯವರು ಮ(ೆಯವರು ಮ(ೆಯವರು ಮ(ೆಯವರು ಅಗತ4 ಅಗತ4 ಅಗತ4 ಅಗತ4 ವಸು<ಗಳನು> ವಸು<ಗಳನು> ವಸು<ಗಳನು> ವಸು<ಗಳನು> ತಂದು ತಂದು ತಂದು ತಂದು $ೊijರುEಾ<7ೆ $ೊijರುEಾ<7ೆ $ೊijರುEಾ<7ೆ $ೊijರುEಾ<7ೆ.... ನನ> ಗಂಡನ ಅಕK(!ಂLಾ4) ಅ)ೕ$ಾದ 5ೆ$ಾ‚ ನಗರದN .ಾಸ!ದುc ಇವರು ನನ> fEಾಥ/, ಮದು.ೆೆ ಆಗ•Rರುವ`ZಲN. ಇವರು Xಾವ ಕಂಪ ಯN Xಾವ $ೆಲಸ ವ/JಸುEಾ<7ೆ. ಆ ಕಂಪ hೆಸರು, !ವರಗಳ_ hಾಗೂ ಇವರ ಬೆU -ಾJ ಇಲN. !ಂLಾ4ರವರು ಸHಾ ೕ&ನN ಸಂ„ಾಷೆಯN ನನ> ಗಂಡ & ರವೆ ]ೇ7ೆWR ಂZಸುವಂEೆ ಮತು< ನನ>ನು> ಕುಟುಂಬZಂದ hೊರೆ hಾಕಲು ಹು(ಾ>ರ -ಾ+ರುEಾ<7ೆ. !ಂLಾ4ರವರು +1 3102663401 ಅವರು ?ದಂದಲೂ …ೕ& ಮೂಲಕ ಕ7ೆ -ಾಡುವವರು hೊರತು ಎಂZಗೂ ನನ> …ೕ& ನಂಬDೆ (9148963559) ಕ7ೆ -ಾ+ಇರುವ`ZಲN. ಆದರೂ ಸಹ ನನ> ಗಂಡ(ೊಂZೆ (ಾನು Xಾ.ಾಗಲೂ ?ೈ0ನN ಎಂೇ† ಇರುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ ಎಂಬುHಾQ ಸುಳ_: ಆ7ೋಪವನು> -ಾ+ರುEಾ<7ೆ. ನನ> )ೕ1ೆ ಇಲN ಸಲNದ ೕ hೇ9$ೊಟುj $ೆಟj ೕಯ ನeೆದು$ೊಳ_:ವಂEೆ hೇ9$ೊಡು<ದcರು. !ಪXಾ/ಸ.ೆಂದ7ೆ ದೂರ.ಾ‡ ಸಂ„ಾಷೆಯN ಇರು.ಾಗ …ೕನ>N ಎಂೇ† 5ೋ& ಬರು<Hೆ ಎಂದು !HೇಶZಂದ ೕ& -ಾ+ ಸುಳ_: ಆ7ೋಪ -ಾಡುವ`ದು ಮತು< ವರದOೆ ಬೆU $ೇ9 ತ1ೆ $ೆ+R ನನ> ಗಂಡನು ನನ> )ೕ1ೆ $ೆಟj ೕ ನeೆದು$ೊಳ_:ವಂEೆ hೇ9$ೊಡು<ದcರು ಅದರಂEೆ ನನ> ಗಂಡ -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ Hೆ4Jಕ.ಾQ ತುಂಾ Sರುಕುಳ ಮತು< Jಂ;ೆ ೕಡು<ದ. ಹಲವ` ಾ ಅಣCಂZರು ನನ> ಗಂಡ(ೊಂZೆ -ಾತ(ಾಡಲು ಪಯ>ರುEಾ<7ೆ. ಆದ7ೆ ನನ> ಗಂಡ ಕ7ೆಯನು> Roೕಕಸಇರುವ`ZಲN ಅದಂHಾQ .ಾಟ‚ˆ ಮೂಲಕ ಬುZ‰hೇಳ_ವ ಪಯತ> -ಾ+ರುEಾ<7ೆ. ಈ ಎ1ಾN ಘಟ(ೆ ಬೆU -ಾತ(ಾಡಲು ನನ> ತಂHೆಯವರು ಮತು< ಅಣCಂZರು !Hಾ4ರವರನು> ಕ7ೆ -ಾ+ -ಾತ(ಾಡಲು ಪಯತ>ದರು ಕ7ೆಯನು> Roೕಕಸಇರುವ`ZಲN. ಇ<ೕtನವ7ೆೆ .ಾ5ಾ‚ˆ ನN Xಾ.ಾಗಲೂ ಬು4R ಇರು<ದc !ಂLಾ4ರವರು ಈಗ ಆ ನಂಬD +1 3102663401 ಬದ1ಾbRರುEಾ<7ೆ. ಈ ಬೆU ಸಂಶXಾಸŠದ.ಾQರುತ<Hೆ. ಇದನು> ಗಂ}ೕರ.ಾQ ಪಗ‡R ತ Aೆ ನeೆRದ7ೆ ಸEಾ4ಂಶ hೊರ ಬರುತ<Hೆ. hಾಗೂ ನನ> ಸಂ;ಾರ ಆHೋಗೆ ಬರಲು ನನ> ಗಂಡನ ಅಕK ಎ.ಎ&.!ಂHಾ4, ನನ> ಅEೆ<, -ಾವ, )ೖದುನ $ಾರಣ. hೆಸರಘಟj ಕ‹ೇಯN „ಾನು.ಾರವƒ ಸಹ $ೆಲಸ ವ/Jಸುವ (ೆಪದN ೆಳೆU 7-00 ಗಂ5ೆೆ hೋದ7ೆ 7ಾ 12-00 ಗಂ5ೆೆ ಮಧ4]ಾನ ;ೇ!R ಬರುವ`ದು, Xಾ.ಾಗಲೂ ಸHಾ$ಾಲ ?ೈ0 ಸಂ„ಾಷೆಯN ಇರುEಾ<7ೆ. ಇದ$ೆK (ಾನು ಪ>Rದ7ೆ ವರದOೆ ತಂದ7ೆ -ಾತ ಎಲN -ಾJ ೕಡು< ನ(ೊ>ijೆ ನ> uೕವನ. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 ಆಆಆಆ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನ> ನ> ನ> ನ> ತಂHೆ ತಂHೆ ತಂHೆ ತಂHೆ Eಾbೆ Eಾbೆ Eಾbೆ Eಾbೆ hಾಗೂ hಾಗೂ hಾಗೂ hಾಗೂ ಅಣCಂZೆ ಅಣCಂZೆ ಅಣCಂZೆ ಅಣCಂZೆ Xಾಗೂ Xಾಗೂ Xಾಗೂ Xಾಗೂ ೕ& ೕ& ೕ& ೕ& -ಾಡಾರದು -ಾಡಾರದು -ಾಡಾರದು -ಾಡಾರದು hಾಗೂ hಾಗೂ hಾಗೂ hಾಗೂ ಅವರು ಅವರು ಅವರು ಅವರು ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ಮ(ೆೆ ಮ(ೆೆ ಮ(ೆೆ ಮ(ೆೆ ಬರಾರದು ಬರಾರದು ಬರಾರದು ಬರಾರದು ಅವಂದ ಅವಂದ ಅವಂದ ಅವಂದ ನಮೆ ನಮೆ ನಮೆ ನಮೆ ಏನೂ ಏನೂ ಏನೂ ಏನೂ 1ಾಭ 1ಾಭ 1ಾಭ 1ಾಭ ಇಲN ಇಲN ಇಲN ಇಲN. . . . ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು .ೇMೆ .ೇMೆ .ೇMೆ .ೇMೆ ಅವರು ಅವರು ಅವರು ಅವರು ಬರೇ$ಾದ7ೆ ಬರೇ$ಾದ7ೆ ಬರೇ$ಾದ7ೆ ಬರೇ$ಾದ7ೆ ವರದOೆ ವರದOೆ ವರದOೆ ವರದOೆ ಸ)ೕತ ಸ)ೕತ ಸ)ೕತ ಸ)ೕತ ಬರೇಕು ಬರೇಕು ಬರೇಕು ಬರೇಕು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಗ1ಾ5ೆ ಗ1ಾ5ೆ ಗ1ಾ5ೆ ಗ1ಾ5ೆ -ಾ+ -ಾ+ -ಾ+ -ಾ+ HೈJಕ.ಾQ HೈJಕ.ಾQ HೈJಕ.ಾQ HೈJಕ.ಾQ -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ Jಂ;ೆ Jಂ;ೆ Jಂ;ೆ Jಂ;ೆ ೕಡು<ದcರು ೕಡು<ದcರು ೕಡು<ದcರು ೕಡು<ದcರು.... ವರದOೆ ವರದOೆ ವರದOೆ ವರದOೆ ತರುವರುವ7ೆಗು ತರುವರುವ7ೆಗು ತರುವರುವ7ೆಗು ತರುವರುವ7ೆಗು ೕನು ೕನು ೕನು ೕನು ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ $ೆಲಸದವಳ_ $ೆಲಸದವಳ_ $ೆಲಸದವಳ_ $ೆಲಸದವಳ_ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು iೕ3 iೕ3 iೕ3 iೕ3 -ಾಡುEಾ<7ೆ -ಾಡುEಾ<7ೆ -ಾಡುEಾ<7ೆ -ಾಡುEಾ<7ೆ ತುಂಾ ತುಂಾ ತುಂಾ ತುಂಾ hಾ7ಾ+ದ7ೆ hಾ7ಾ+ದ7ೆ hಾ7ಾ+ದ7ೆ hಾ7ಾ+ದ7ೆ $ೈ $ೈ $ೈ $ೈ $ಾಲು $ಾಲು $ಾಲು $ಾಲು ಮುದು ಮುದು ಮುದು ಮುದು ಕೂಸು<ೕ ಕೂಸು<ೕ ಕೂಸು<ೕ ಕೂಸು<ೕ , , , , ಅeೆ ಅeೆ ಅeೆ ಅeೆ ಇಲNHೆ ಇಲNHೆ ಇಲNHೆ ಇಲNHೆ -ಾ+aಡು< -ಾ+aಡು< -ಾ+aಡು< -ಾ+aಡು< Wೕeೆ Wೕeೆ Wೕeೆ Wೕeೆ EೊಲQತು EೊಲQತು EೊಲQತು EೊಲQತು ಅಂಥ ಅಂಥ ಅಂಥ ಅಂಥ hೇಳ_Eಾ<(ೆ hೇಳ_Eಾ<(ೆ hೇಳ_Eಾ<(ೆ hೇಳ_Eಾ<(ೆ ಆಆಆಆ ಸಮಯದN ಸಮಯದN ಸಮಯದN ಸಮಯದN (ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು 3 3 3 3 ಂಗಳ ಂಗಳ ಂಗಳ ಂಗಳ ಗ}ೕ/‡XಾQರುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ ಗ}ೕ/‡XಾQರುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ ಗ}ೕ/‡XಾQರುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ ಗ}ೕ/‡XಾQರುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ ಇದನು> ಇದನು> ಇದನು> ಇದನು> 1ೆSKಸHೆ 1ೆSKಸHೆ 1ೆSKಸHೆ 1ೆSKಸHೆ Jಂ;ೆ Jಂ;ೆ Jಂ;ೆ Jಂ;ೆ ೕಡು<ದcರು ೕಡು<ದcರು ೕಡು<ದcರು ೕಡು<ದcರು. . . . ಎಂZನಂEೆ ಎಂZನಂEೆ ಎಂZನಂEೆ ಎಂZನಂEೆ ೆಳೆU ೆಳೆU ೆಳೆU ೆಳೆU 4 4 4 4----30 30 30 30 ಅಡುೆ ಅಡುೆ ಅಡುೆ ಅಡುೆ ಮ(ೆಯN ಮ(ೆಯN ಮ(ೆಯN ಮ(ೆಯN ಂ+ ಂ+ ಂ+ ಂ+ -ಾಡು<Hಾcಗ -ಾಡು<Hಾcಗ -ಾಡು<Hಾcಗ -ಾಡು<Hಾcಗ ಇದcSKದcಂEೆ ಇದcSKದcಂEೆ ಇದcSKದcಂEೆ ಇದcSKದcಂEೆ ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ & & & & " " " "(ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು ಎ•ೆjೕ ಎ•ೆjೕ ಎ•ೆjೕ ಎ•ೆjೕ ೈದರೂ ೈದರೂ ೈದರೂ ೈದರೂ >ಂದ >ಂದ >ಂದ >ಂದ ಏನು ಏನು ಏನು ಏನು ಪSŽ ಪSŽ ಪSŽ ಪSŽ ಇಲN.ೆಂದು ಇಲN.ೆಂದು ಇಲN.ೆಂದು ಇಲN.ೆಂದು ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ತ1ೆ ತ1ೆ ತ1ೆ ತ1ೆ ಕೂದಲು ಕೂದಲು ಕೂದಲು ಕೂದಲು J+ದು J+ದು J+ದು J+ದು ತನ> ತನ> ತನ> ತನ> ಬಲ.ಾದ ಬಲ.ಾದ ಬಲ.ಾದ ಬಲ.ಾದ $ೈಗ9ಂದ $ೈಗ9ಂದ $ೈಗ9ಂದ $ೈಗ9ಂದ ಗ}/‡ ಗ}/‡ ಗ}/‡ ಗ}/‡ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು 1ೆSKಸHೆ 1ೆSKಸHೆ 1ೆSKಸHೆ 1ೆSKಸHೆ ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> )ೕ1ೆ )ೕ1ೆ )ೕ1ೆ )ೕ1ೆ ಹ1ೆN ಹ1ೆN ಹ1ೆN ಹ1ೆN -ಾ+ರುEಾ<(ೆ -ಾ+ರುEಾ<(ೆ -ಾ+ರುEಾ<(ೆ -ಾ+ರುEಾ<(ೆ" " " " ಇದಂದ ಇದಂದ ಇದಂದ ಇದಂದ ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ಬಲ ಬಲ ಬಲ ಬಲ S!ೆ S!ೆ S!ೆ S!ೆ ]ೆ5ಾjQರುತ<Hೆ ]ೆ5ಾjQರುತ<Hೆ ]ೆ5ಾjQರುತ<Hೆ ]ೆ5ಾjQರುತ<Hೆ ಇದಂದ ಇದಂದ ಇದಂದ ಇದಂದ ರಕ< ರಕ< ರಕ< ರಕ< ಮತು< ಮತು< ಮತು< ಮತು< ಊತಾಯ.ಾQರುತ<Hೆ ಊತಾಯ.ಾQರುತ<Hೆ ಊತಾಯ.ಾQರುತ<Hೆ ಊತಾಯ.ಾQರುತ<Hೆ. . . . . . . ಈ ಈ ಈ ಈ ಘಟ(ೆ ಘಟ(ೆ ಘಟ(ೆ ಘಟ(ೆ Z(ಾಂಕ Z(ಾಂಕ Z(ಾಂಕ Z(ಾಂಕ 29 29 29 29----11 11 11 11----2022 2022 2022 2022 ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ೆ9ೆU ೆ9ೆU ೆ9ೆU ೆ9ೆU 5 5 5 5----00 00 00 00 ಗಂ5ೆೆ ಗಂ5ೆೆ ಗಂ5ೆೆ ಗಂ5ೆೆ ನeೆZರುತ<Hೆ ನeೆZರುತ<Hೆ ನeೆZರುತ<Hೆ ನeೆZರುತ<Hೆ. . . . ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ Jಂ;ೆ Jಂ;ೆ Jಂ;ೆ Jಂ;ೆ ಸJR$ೊಳ:Hೆ ಸJR$ೊಳ:Hೆ ಸJR$ೊಳ:Hೆ ಸJR$ೊಳ:Hೆ ತದ ತದ ತದ ತದ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ (ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು ಯಲಹಂಕ ಯಲಹಂಕ ಯಲಹಂಕ ಯಲಹಂಕ ೕ ೕ ೕ ೕ ಾೆೆ ಾೆೆ ಾೆೆ ಾೆೆ ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ೕಡಲು ೕಡಲು ೕಡಲು ೕಡಲು hೋHಾಗ hೋHಾಗ hೋHಾಗ hೋHಾಗ ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಅಡ•ಗij ಅಡ•ಗij ಅಡ•ಗij ಅಡ•ಗij ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ೕಡದಂEೆ ೕಡದಂEೆ ೕಡದಂEೆ ೕಡದಂEೆ ತeೆZರುEಾ<7ೆ ತeೆZರುEಾ<7ೆ ತeೆZರುEಾ<7ೆ ತeೆZರುEಾ<7ೆ. . . . """"ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು .ೇMೆ .ೇMೆ .ೇMೆ .ೇMೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ೊ<ಲNHೆ ೊ<ಲNHೆ ೊ<ಲNHೆ ೊ<ಲNHೆ ೕ ೕ ೕ ೕ ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ೕ+ದ7ೆ ೕ+ದ7ೆ ೕ+ದ7ೆ ೕ+ದ7ೆ ನ>ನು> ನ>ನು> ನ>ನು> ನ>ನು> ;ಾbR ;ಾbR ;ಾbR ;ಾbR a;ಾಡುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ a;ಾಡುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ a;ಾಡುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ a;ಾಡುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ ಮತು< ಮತು< ಮತು< ಮತು< (ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು $ಾN $ಾN $ಾN $ಾN ----೧೧೧೧ ಆYೕಸD ಆYೕಸD ಆYೕಸD ಆYೕಸD ಆQದುc ಆQದುc ಆQದುc ಆQದುc 7ಾಜSೕಯ 7ಾಜSೕಯ 7ಾಜSೕಯ 7ಾಜSೕಯ ಪ„ಾ!ಗಳ_ ಪ„ಾ!ಗಳ_ ಪ„ಾ!ಗಳ_ ಪ„ಾ!ಗಳ_ ೊ<ರುವ`ದಂದ ೊ<ರುವ`ದಂದ ೊ<ರುವ`ದಂದ ೊ<ರುವ`ದಂದ (ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು $ಾನೂ ನ+ $ಾನೂ ನ+ $ಾನೂ ನ+ $ಾನೂ ನ+ hೇೆ hೇೆ hೇೆ hೇೆ ]ಾ7ೋೋದು ]ಾ7ೋೋದು ]ಾ7ೋೋದು ]ಾ7ೋೋದು ಎಂಬುದು ಎಂಬುದು ಎಂಬುದು ಎಂಬುದು ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ 9ZHೆ 9ZHೆ 9ZHೆ 9ZHೆ" " " " ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ೆದ$ೆ ೆದ$ೆ ೆದ$ೆ ೆದ$ೆ hಾSದುc hಾSದುc hಾSದುc hಾSದುc ಆಾQ ಆಾQ ಆಾQ ಆಾQ ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ೕ+ಲN ೕ+ಲN ೕ+ಲN ೕ+ಲN.... ಆ ಸಮಯದN ನನ> ತಂHೆ-Eಾbೆ, ಅಣC ೆ !ಷಯ ಮುijRHಾಗ ನನ> ಎರಡ(ೇ ಅಣC ಅrೆ’ೕx ಕು-ಾD ಬುZ‰.ಾದ 9Rದರೂ ಸಹ ಆತನ ಹMೇ wಾ9ಯನು> ಮುಂದುವ7ೆRರುEಾ<(ೆ ಆದುದಂದ ನಮG ತಂHೆ ಯಲಹಂಕ ಮ(ೆೆ ಬಂದು 29-11-2022 ನನ>ನು> -ಾಲೂೆ ಕ7ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು, Z(ಾಂಕ 30-11-2022 ರಂದು -ಾಲೂರು ಸ$ಾ/ ಆಸŠEೆಯN tSEೆ‚ ಪeೆದು$ೊಂ+ರುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ (EHR ID: 22010091086052190) )+$ೋ ೕಗ0 $ೇ ಎಂಬುHಾQ .ೈದ4ರು. ದೂರು HಾಖR tSEೆ‚ ೕ+ರುEಾ<7ೆ. ಆ ನಂತರ ನನ> ತಂHೆ ಮ(ೆಯN 03 ಂಗಳ_ .ಾಸ!ರುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ. ತದ ನಂತರ Jಯರ ಸಮುGಖದN ೆಂಗಳನ ಯಲಹಂಕದ ಅಟೂjರು Hೇವ;ಾ<ನ ಆವರಣದN ಪಂwಾb ;ೇ ಸದ ಪಂwಾb ೕ-ಾ/ನದಂEೆ ನನ>ನು> ಗಂಡನ ಮ(ೆೆ ಕಳ_JR$ೊಟjರು. ಆಆಆಆ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ಸು-ಾ ಸು-ಾ ಸು-ಾ ಸು-ಾರು ರು ರು ರು ಎರಡು ಎರಡು ಎರಡು ಎರಡು ಂಗಳ ಂಗಳ ಂಗಳ ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ಮEೆ< ಮEೆ< ಮEೆ< ಮEೆ< ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಆತನ ಆತನ ಆತನ ಆತನ ಹMೇ ಹMೇ ಹMೇ ಹMೇ wಾ9ಯನು> wಾ9ಯನು> wಾ9ಯನು> wಾ9ಯನು> ಮುಂದುವ7ೆRರುEಾ<(ೆ ಮುಂದುವ7ೆRರುEಾ<(ೆ ಮುಂದುವ7ೆRರುEಾ<(ೆ ಮುಂದುವ7ೆRರುEಾ<(ೆ. . . . ಏನೂ ಏನೂ ಏನೂ ಏನೂ ಬದ1ಾವೆXಾQರುವ`ZಲN ಬದ1ಾವೆXಾQರುವ`ZಲN ಬದ1ಾವೆXಾQರುವ`ZಲN ಬದ1ಾವೆXಾQರುವ`ZಲN. . . . ?ೈ0 ?ೈ0 ?ೈ0 ?ೈ0 ಬಳ$ೆ ಬಳ$ೆ ಬಳ$ೆ ಬಳ$ೆ -ಾಡಾರHೆಂದು -ಾಡಾರHೆಂದು -ಾಡಾರHೆಂದು -ಾಡಾರHೆಂದು ಬ/ಂದ ಬ/ಂದ ಬ/ಂದ ಬ/ಂದ hಾSರುEಾ<7ೆ hಾSರುEಾ<7ೆ hಾSರುEಾ<7ೆ hಾSರುEಾ<7ೆ. . . . ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ 9 9 9 9 ಂಗಳ ಂಗಳ ಂಗಳ ಂಗಳ ಗ}/‡ ಗ}/‡ ಗ}/‡ ಗ}/‡ ಸಮಯದN ಸಮಯದN ಸಮಯದN ಸಮಯದN )ೕಲKಂಡ )ೕಲKಂಡ )ೕಲKಂಡ )ೕಲKಂಡ !MಾಸದN !MಾಸದN !MಾಸದN !MಾಸದN ನಮG ನಮG ನಮG ನಮG ತಂHೆ ತಂHೆ ತಂHೆ ತಂHೆ----Eಾb Eಾb Eಾb Eಾb ಖt/ ಂದ ಖt/ ಂದ ಖt/ ಂದ ಖt/ ಂದ ೕಮಂತವನು> ೕಮಂತವನು> ೕಮಂತವನು> ೕಮಂತವನು> ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ -ಾ+ -ಾ+ -ಾ+ -ಾ+ hೆೆೆ hೆೆೆ hೆೆೆ hೆೆೆ ನಮG ನಮG ನಮG ನಮG ತಂHೆ ತಂHೆ ತಂHೆ ತಂHೆ ಮ(ೆೆ ಮ(ೆೆ ಮ(ೆೆ ಮ(ೆೆ - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 ಕ7ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಕ7ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಕ7ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಕ7ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಬಂZರುEಾ<7ೆ ಬಂZರುEಾ<7ೆ ಬಂZರುEಾ<7ೆ ಬಂZರುEಾ<7ೆ. . . . (ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು Z(ಾಂಕ Z(ಾಂಕ Z(ಾಂಕ Z(ಾಂಕ 12 12 12 12----06 06 06 06----2023 2023 2023 2023 ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ಎಂ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಎಂ....ಎ ಎ ಎ ಎ....7ಾಮಯ4 7ಾಮಯ4 7ಾಮಯ4 7ಾಮಯ4 ಸೂಪD ಸೂಪD ಸೂಪD ಸೂಪD ;ೆ•ಾi ;ೆ•ಾi ;ೆ•ಾi ;ೆ•ಾi ಆಸŠEೆ ಆಸŠEೆ ಆಸŠEೆ ಆಸŠEೆ, , , , ಮ<$ೆ7ೆ ಮ<$ೆ7ೆ ಮ<$ೆ7ೆ ಮ<$ೆ7ೆ, , , , ೆಂಗಳನN ೆಂಗಳನN ೆಂಗಳನN ೆಂಗಳನN Hಾಖ1ಾQ Hಾಖ1ಾQ Hಾಖ1ಾQ Hಾಖ1ಾQ hೆಣುC hೆಣುC hೆಣುC hೆಣುC ಮಗು!ೆ ಮಗು!ೆ ಮಗು!ೆ ಮಗು!ೆ ಜನನ ಜನನ ಜನನ ಜನನ ೕ+ರುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ ೕ+ರುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ ೕ+ರುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ ೕ+ರುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ. . . . ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ R•ೇಯ& R•ೇಯ& R•ೇಯ& R•ೇಯ& hೆೆ hೆೆ hೆೆ hೆೆ -ಾ+ದುc -ಾ+ದುc -ಾ+ದುc -ಾ+ದುc ಆಸŠEೆ ಆಸŠEೆ ಆಸŠEೆ ಆಸŠEೆ ಖಚು/ಗಳ_ ಖಚು/ಗಳ_ ಖಚು/ಗಳ_ ಖಚು/ಗಳ_ ಸು-ಾರು ಸು-ಾರು ಸು-ಾರು ಸು-ಾರು 2,50,000/ 2,50,000/ 2,50,000/ 2,50,000/---- ರೂ]ಾbಗಳನು> ರೂ]ಾbಗಳನು> ರೂ]ಾbಗಳನು> ರೂ]ಾbಗಳನು> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ತಂHೆ ತಂHೆ ತಂHೆ ತಂHೆ----Eಾb Eಾb Eಾb Eಾb ಅಣCಂZರು ಅಣCಂZರು ಅಣCಂZರು ಅಣCಂZರು ಭRರುEಾ<7ೆ ಭRರುEಾ<7ೆ ಭRರುEಾ<7ೆ ಭRರುEಾ<7ೆ. . . . ಆಗಲೂ ಆಗಲೂ ಆಗಲೂ ಆಗಲೂ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ಗಂಡನು ಗಂಡನು ಗಂಡನು ಗಂಡನು ಜ.ಾಾc ಜ.ಾಾc ಜ.ಾಾc ಜ.ಾಾc Eೆೆದು$ೊಂ+ರುವ`ZಲN Eೆೆದು$ೊಂ+ರುವ`ZಲN Eೆೆದು$ೊಂ+ರುವ`ZಲN Eೆೆದು$ೊಂ+ರುವ`ZಲN. hೆೆXಾದ ನಂತರ ಅಂZ ಂದ -ಾಲೂನ ನನ> ತಂHೆ-Eಾb ಮ(ೆಯN ಮಗು ಸ)ೕತ .ಾಸ!ರುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ. ಈಗ ಮಗು!ೆ 12(ೇ ಂಗ9ನN ನeೆಯು<ರುತ<Hೆ. hೆೆXಾHಾQ ಂದ 02 ಸಲ ನನ>ಗಂಡ -ಾಲೂೆ ಬಂZರುEಾ<7ೆ. ?ದಲ(ೆ ಾ ಮ(ೆೆ ಬಂHಾಗ ವರದOೆ ಸ-ಾwಾರ $ೇಳ1ಾQ (ಾನು ನಮG ತಂHೆ- Eಾbಯನು> $ೇಳ_ ಎಂHಾಗ ಅNŽೕ ಪಕKದNದc ತರ$ಾ ಹಚುfವ ಕ<bಂದ aೕRದುc ಅದೃಷjವrಾ“ ಅದು ನನೆ aೕಳHೆ ಇದcಂದ (ಾನು ಅ]ಾಯZಂದ ]ಾ7ಾQರುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ. ಆಗಲೂ (ಾನು ಸJR$ೊಂ+ರುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ. ನಂತರ ನನ> ಗಂಡ .ಾಪಸು‚ hೊರಟು hೋQರುEಾ<(ೆ ಮEೆ< ಎರಡೇ ಾ ಬಂHಾಗ ನನ> ಮ(ೆೆ ಕಳ_JR$ೊ+ ಎಂದು ನನ> ಗಂಡ ನನ> ತಂHೆ-Eಾb ಅಣCಂZರನು> $ೇ9ರುEಾ<7ೆ. ಅದ$ೆK ನನ> ತಂHೆ-Eಾb ಮತು< ಅಣCಂZರು, ನನ> ಗಂಡ ೆ “ “ “ “ ಮG ಮG ಮG ಮG ಮ(ೆಯವರ ಮ(ೆಯವರ ಮ(ೆಯವರ ಮ(ೆಯವರ ತಂHೆ ತಂHೆ ತಂHೆ ತಂHೆ----Eಾbಯವ7ೊijೆ Eಾbಯವ7ೊijೆ Eಾbಯವ7ೊijೆ Eಾbಯವ7ೊijೆ ಸಂಪHಾbಕ.ಾQ ಸಂಪHಾbಕ.ಾQ ಸಂಪHಾbಕ.ಾQ ಸಂಪHಾbಕ.ಾQ ಕ7ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಕ7ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಕ7ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಕ7ೆದು$ೊಂಡು hೋಗಲು hೋಗಲು hೋಗಲು hೋಗಲು 9RರುEಾ< 9RರುEಾ< 9RರುEಾ< 9RರುEಾ<7ೆ7ೆ7ೆ7ೆ. . . . ಇದ$ೆK ಇದ$ೆK ಇದ$ೆK ಇದ$ೆK ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಒWŠ$ೊಂಡು ಒWŠ$ೊಂಡು ಒWŠ$ೊಂಡು ಒWŠ$ೊಂಡು hೋQರುEಾ<7ೆ hೋQರುEಾ<7ೆ hೋQರುEಾ<7ೆ hೋQರುEಾ<7ೆ"""" ನಂತರ ನನೆ ದೂರ.ಾ‡ -ಾ+ (ಾವ` Xಾರು ಮG ಮ(ೆೆ ಬರುವ`ZಲN ಮG ಮ(ೆಯವ7ೇ Hಾವಣೆ7ೆೆ ಕ7ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಬರ ಎಂದು ನ(ೊ>ijೆ 9RರುEಾ<7ೆ. ಒಂದು .ೇMೆ ೕನು ಬರHೇ ಇದc7ೆ ೕನು ನನೆ ೇ$ಾQಲN ತವರು ಮ(ೆಯNŽೕ rಾಶoತ.ಾQರೇಕು ವರದOೆ ಹಣ ರೂ. 50,00,000/- ತಂದ7ೆ ನನ> ಮ(ೆಯN ನೆ •ಾಗ ನ(ೊ>ijೆ uೕವನ -ಾಡಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ೕ& ಮುAಾಂತರ ನನ> ಗಂಡ hೇ9ರುEಾ<7ೆ. ನನ> ಅEೆ< -ಾವ ಮಗುವನು> (ೋಡಲು ಾರದ $ಾರಣ (ಾನು ೕ&ನN $ೇ9 -ಾಲೂೆ ಮಗುವನು> (ೋಡಲು ಬ >, ಎಂದು 9Rದುc ಅದ$ೆK ಅವರು """"ನಮೆ ನಮೆ ನಮೆ ನಮೆ hೆhೆhೆhೆಣುC ಣುC ಣುC ಣುC ಮಗು ಮಗು ಮಗು ಮಗು ಇಷj!ಲN ಇಷj!ಲN ಇಷj!ಲN ಇಷj!ಲN, , , , ಅದ$ೆK ಅದ$ೆK ಅದ$ೆK ಅದ$ೆK (ಾವ` (ಾವ` (ಾವ` (ಾವ` ಬರುವ`ZಲN ಬರುವ`ZಲN ಬರುವ`ZಲN ಬರುವ`ZಲN ಮG ಮG ಮG ಮG ಮ(ೆ ಮ(ೆ ಮ(ೆ ಮ(ೆ ಾQಲ ಾQಲ ಾQಲ ಾQಲ ಬಸಲನು> ಬಸಲನು> ಬಸಲನು> ಬಸಲನು> ತು9ಯುವ`ZಲN ತು9ಯುವ`ZಲN ತು9ಯುವ`ZಲN ತು9ಯುವ`ZಲN" " " " >ಂದ ನಮೆ ಏನೂ 1ಾಭ!ಲN ಎಂದು 9RರುEಾ<7ೆ. ಆ ನಂತರ ಮಗು!ೆ ಹುijದ ಕೂದಲು Eೆೆಯುವ ಸಮಯದNಯೂ ಸಹ ನನೆ ಗಂಡು ಮಗು ೇSತು< ಆದ7ೆ ೕನು hೆಣುC ಮಗು, ಜನನ ೕ+ZcXಾ ಇದು ನನೆ ಖಚು/ ಾಬತು< ಆ $ಾರಣ ನನೆ ಮತು< ನಮG ತಂHೆ-Eಾbೆ ಜ.ಾಾc ಇಲN ೕ(ೆ $ೆಲಸ$ೆK hೋQ ಸಂ]ಾದ(ೆ -ಾ+ ನ> hೆಣುC ಮಗುವನು> ಉತ<7ೋತ<ರ (ೋ+$ೊಳ:ೇಕು ನ> ಸಂಪƒಣ/ ಜ.ಾಾcXಾQರುತ<Hೆ ಎಂದು ಜ.ಾಾcbಂದ ನುಣುt$ೊಂ+ರುEಾ<7ೆ. ಆ ನಂತರ ;ೆ]ೆjಂಬD 2023 ಂದ ಎಂ.hೆ”. ಮದD ಹ• ಆಂಜ(ೇಯ, hೊಸ$ೋ5ೆ EಾಲೂNಕು WNˆ $ಾ3/ನN Rೕ ಯD ಅR;ೆjಂ3 ಆQ - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 ಉHೊ4ೕಗ ವ/Jಸು<ದುc ತದ ನಂತರ +.ಇ.ಒ ಆQ Z(ಾಂಕ 11-05-2024 ರವ7ೆಗೂ $ಾಯ/ ವ/JR ಆ ಕಂಪ ಯN $ೆಲಸ aಟುj ನರ;ಾಪ`ರ $ೈಾ$ಾ ಪHೇಶದN 5ಾ5ಾ ಎ1ೆ$ಾ– x‚ ಕಂಪ ಯN $ೆಲಸ ವ/Jಸು<Hೆcೕ(ೆ. ನನೆ ನನ> hಾಗೂ ನನ> ಮಗು!ನ uೕವನದ ವ/ಹೆ -ಾಡುವ ಕತ/ವ4!ರುತ<Hೆ. ನನ> ಗಂಡನು ನನ>ನು> ಮತು< ನನ> ಮಗು!ನ ೕಷೆ ಜ.ಾಾc ವ/JಸHೇ ೆಂಗಳನNŽೕ ಇರುEಾ<7ೆ. hೆಸರಘಟj ಕ‹ೇಯN „ಾನು.ಾರವƒ ಸಹ $ೆಲಸ ವ/Jಸುವ (ೆಪದN ೆಳೆU 7-00 ಗಂ5ೆೆ hೋದ7ೆ 7ಾ 12-00 ಗಂ5ೆೆ ಮಧ4]ಾನ ;ೇ!R ಬರುವ`ದು. Xಾ.ಾಗಲೂ ಸHಾ$ಾಲ ?ೈ0 ಸಂ„ಾಷೆಯN ಇರುEಾ<7ೆ. ಇದ$ೆK (ಾನು ಪ>Rದ7ೆ ವರದOೆ ತಂದ7ೆ -ಾತ ನ(ೊ>ijೆ ನ> uೕವನ ಇಲN.ಾದ7ೆ ೕನು ಅNŽೕ ಇರು ಎಂದು 9RರುEಾ<7ೆ. ಅಲNHೇ Z(ಾಂಕ 12-06-2024 ರಂದು ನನ> ಮಗಳ ಹುijದ Zನ ಪಯುಕ< ನನ> ಗಂಡನನು> ಕ7ೆಯ1ಾQ ಅವರು (ಾನು ಬರುವ`ZಲN. ನನೆ ಮG ಮ(ೆೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಇಲN ಎಂದು ಜ.ಾಾcbಂದ ನುಣುt$ೊಳ_:Eಾ<7ೆ. ಇದಂHಾQ (ಾನು -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ ತುಂಾ (ೊಂZರುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ. ಆದ $ಾರಣ ಈ )ೕಲKಂಡ ಘಟ(ೆಗ9ೆ ನನ> ಗಂಡ & ಎ.ಎ, ನನ> -ಾವ ಅೆC ವಕು-ಾD ವೃತ< ]ಾಂಶು]ಾಲ, ನನ> ಅEೆ< ೕಮ ಚನ>!ೕರಮG, ನನ> )ೖHಾ ಪಮುI, ನನ> ಗಂಡನ Jಯ ಅಕK ಎ.ಎ&.!ಂLಾ4 $ಾರಣಕತ/7ಾQದುc ಇವರುಗಳ )ೕ1ೆ ಕೂಡ1ೇ ಸೂಕ< $ಾನೂನು ಕಮ ಜರುQR ನನೆ hಾಗೂ ನನ> hೆಣುC ಮಗು ಸು-ಾರು 1 ವಷ/ದ Hೇವನ9ೆ (ಾ4ಯ HೊರSR$ೊಡೇ$ೆಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮGN ]ಾ^/R ಈ YXಾ/ದನು> ಸNRರುEೆ<ೕ(ೆ ಮhಾ;ಾo•. ವಂದ(ೆಗMೆಂZೆ, Z(ಾಂಕ: 07-07-2024 ಸJ ಸnಳ: ಯಲಹಂಕ. YXಾ/ZHಾರರು” (Emphasis added) The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtained in column No.17 is as follows: “17. $ೇRನ ಸಂOಪ< ;ಾ7ಾಂಶ:- - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 ಈ Hೋ•ಾ7ೋಪೆ ಪij ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರN ನಮೂZRರುವ ಎ-1 ಂದ ಎ-5 ಆ7ೋWತರುಗಳN ಎ-1 ಆ7ೋWಯು ;ಾO-1 ರವರ ಗಂಡ(ಾQರುEಾ<(ೆ. ಎ-2 ಮತು< ಎ-3 ಆ7ೋWತರು ಎ-1 ಆ7ೋWಯ ತಂHೆ-EಾbXಾQರುEಾ<7ೆ, ಎ-4 ಆ7ೋWತನು ಎ-1 ಆ7ೋWಯ ಸhೋದರ ಮತು< ಎ-5 ಆ7ೋWEೆಯು ಎ-1 ಆ7ೋWಯ ಸhೋದXಾQರುEಾ<Mೆ, ಎ-1 ಆ7ೋWಯು ;ಾO-1 ರವರನು> Z(ಾಂಕ: 13/02/2022 ರಂದು Jಂದೂ ಸಂಪHಾಯದಂEೆ rಾ;ೋಕ<.ಾQ ಆD.ಆD. ಕ(ೆo& ಷ& hಾ0, ೕ sೇತ $ೈ.ಾರ, tಕKಬMಾ:ಪ`ರದN ಗುರು Jಯರ ಸಮುಖದN, ಮದು.ೆ -ಾ+$ೊಂ+ರುEಾ<(ೆ. ಮದು.ೆಯ ಪƒವ/ದN ಎ-1 ಂದ ಎ-5 ಆ7ೋWತರ ೇ+$ೆಯಂEೆ ಎ-1 ಆ7ೋWತ ೆ ಬಂಾರದ ಕತು<, wೈ&, ಬಂಾರದ ಾ1ೈ3, ಬಂಾರದ ಉಂಗುರ, ೆ1ೆ ಾಳ_ವ ಸೂ3 hಾಗೂ ;ಾO-1 ರವೆ ಬಂಾರದ ಕ<ನ hಾರ, ಬಂಾರದ (ೆx1ೆ, ಬಂಾರದ S! ಓ1ೆ, ಬಂಾರದ ಉಂಗುರ hಾಗೂ ಇEಾ4Z ೆ1ೆ ಾಳ_ವ ವಸು<ಗಳನು> ಮತು< ಮ(ೆ ಗೃಹಬಳ$ೆ ವಸು<ಗಳನು> ೕ+ ಮದು.ೆ -ಾ+ $ೊijರುEಾ<7ೆ. ;ಾO-1 ರವರು ಮದು.ೆ ನಂತರ ಎ-1 ಂದ ಎ-4 ಆ7ೋWತರ •ೊEೆೆ ಯಲಹಂಕ ಉಪನಗರ ೕ ಾಾ ಸರಹZcೆ ;ೇದ ಯಲಹಂಕ Rಂಗ(ಾಯಕನಹ9: ಅಂwೆ, ಅನಂತಪ`ರ ೇ3, +,ೕ -ಾ.ೆ/0 1ೇಔ3, 1(ೇ ಮುಖ4 ರ;ೆ<, 3(ೇ $ಾ, ಮ(ೆ ನಂ.382 ರN .ಾಸ.ಾQದcರು. ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO----1 1 1 1 ರವರನು> ರವರನು> ರವರನು> ರವರನು> ಮದು.ೆXಾದ ಮದು.ೆXಾದ ಮದು.ೆXಾದ ಮದು.ೆXಾದ 3 3 3 3 ಂಗಳ_ಗಳ ಂಗಳ_ಗಳ ಂಗಳ_ಗಳ ಂಗಳ_ಗಳ $ಾಲ $ಾಲ $ಾಲ $ಾಲ -ಾತ -ಾತ -ಾತ -ಾತ wೆ(ಾ>Q wೆ(ಾ>Q wೆ(ಾ>Q wೆ(ಾ>Q (ೋ+$ೊಂಡು (ೋ+$ೊಂಡು (ೋ+$ೊಂಡು (ೋ+$ೊಂಡು, , , , ನಂತರದ ನಂತರದ ನಂತರದ ನಂತರದ ZನಗಳN ZನಗಳN ZನಗಳN ZನಗಳN, , , , ಎಎಎಎ----1 1 1 1 ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎಎಎಎ----4 4 4 4 ಆ7ೋWತರು ಆ7ೋWತರು ಆ7ೋWತರು ಆ7ೋWತರು ಅ)ೕ$ಾದ ಅ)ೕ$ಾದ ಅ)ೕ$ಾದ ಅ)ೕ$ಾದ ;ಾG& ;ಾG& ;ಾG& ;ಾG& ]ಾ ‚ ]ಾ ‚ ]ಾ ‚ ]ಾ ‚ $ೊದN $ೊದN $ೊದN $ೊದN .ಾಸ!ರುವ .ಾಸ!ರುವ .ಾಸ!ರುವ .ಾಸ!ರುವ ಎಎಎಎ----5 5 5 5 ಆ7ೋWEೆ ಆ7ೋWEೆ ಆ7ೋWEೆ ಆ7ೋWEೆ -ಾತುಗಳನು> -ಾತುಗಳನು> -ಾತುಗಳನು> -ಾತುಗಳನು> $ೇ9$ೊಂಡು $ೇ9$ೊಂಡು $ೇ9$ೊಂಡು $ೇ9$ೊಂಡು ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO----1 1 1 1 ರವೆ ರವೆ ರವೆ ರವೆ ಅ(ಾವಶ4ಕ.ಾQ ಅ(ಾವಶ4ಕ.ಾQ ಅ(ಾವಶ4ಕ.ಾQ ಅ(ಾವಶ4ಕ.ಾQ !(ಾಃ !(ಾಃ !(ಾಃ !(ಾಃ $ಾರಣ $ಾರಣ $ಾರಣ $ಾರಣ ೈಯುವ`ದು ೈಯುವ`ದು ೈಯುವ`ದು ೈಯುವ`ದು, , , , ಮXಾ/Hೆ ಮXಾ/Hೆ ಮXಾ/Hೆ ಮXಾ/Hೆ ಇಲNದಂEೆ ಇಲNದಂEೆ ಇಲNದಂEೆ ಇಲNದಂEೆ ನeೆದು$ೊಳ_:ವ`ದು ನeೆದು$ೊಳ_:ವ`ದು ನeೆದು$ೊಳ_:ವ`ದು ನeೆದು$ೊಳ_:ವ`ದು -ಾಡು<ದುc -ಾಡು<ದುc -ಾಡು<ದುc -ಾಡು<ದುc ಪ>Rದ ಪ>Rದ ಪ>Rದ ಪ>Rದ ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO----1 1 1 1 ರವೆ ರವೆ ರವೆ ರವೆ ಎಎಎಎ----1 1 1 1 ಆ7ೋWತನು ಆ7ೋWತನು ಆ7ೋWತನು ಆ7ೋWತನು " " " " ೕನು ೕನು ೕನು ೕನು ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ;ಾibಲN ;ಾibಲN ;ಾibಲN ;ಾibಲN ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ $ೆಲಸ$ೆK $ೆಲಸ$ೆK $ೆಲಸ$ೆK $ೆಲಸ$ೆK hೋQ hೋQ hೋQ hೋQ wೆ(ಾ>Q wೆ(ಾ>Q wೆ(ಾ>Q wೆ(ಾ>Q ಸಂಬಳ ಸಂಬಳ ಸಂಬಳ ಸಂಬಳ ತರುವ ತರುವ ತರುವ ತರುವ ಹುಡುQಯನು> ಹುಡುQಯನು> ಹುಡುQಯನು> ಹುಡುQಯನು> ಮದು.ೆXಾಗುವ ಮದು.ೆXಾಗುವ ಮದು.ೆXಾಗುವ ಮದು.ೆXಾಗುವ ಇಷj ಇಷj ಇಷj ಇಷj ಇತು< ಇತು< ಇತು< ಇತು<, , , , ನೆ ನೆ ನೆ ನೆ ಮXಾ/Hೆ ಮXಾ/Hೆ ಮXಾ/Hೆ ಮXಾ/Hೆ $ೊಡುವ`ದು $ೊಡುವ`ದು $ೊಡುವ`ದು $ೊಡುವ`ದು $ೆಲಸ$ೆK $ೆಲಸ$ೆK $ೆಲಸ$ೆK $ೆಲಸ$ೆK hೋQ hೋQ hೋQ hೋQ ಸಂಬಳ ಸಂಬಳ ಸಂಬಳ ಸಂಬಳ ತಂದ7ೆ ತಂದ7ೆ ತಂದ7ೆ ತಂದ7ೆ -ಾತ -ಾತ -ಾತ -ಾತ" " " " ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ೈದು ೈದು ೈದು ೈದು " " " "(ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು ಸ$ಾ/ ಸ$ಾ/ ಸ$ಾ/ ಸ$ಾ/ (ೌಕರ (ೌಕರ (ೌಕರ (ೌಕರ” ” ” ” ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ನ> ನ> ನ> ನ> ತವರು ತವರು ತವರು ತವರು ಮ(ೆbಂದ ಮ(ೆbಂದ ಮ(ೆbಂದ ಮ(ೆbಂದ ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ.50,00,000/ .50,00,000/ .50,00,000/ .50,00,000/---- ವರದOೆ ವರದOೆ ವರದOೆ ವರದOೆ ಹಣವನು> ಹಣವನು> ಹಣವನು> ಹಣವನು> Eೆೆದು$ೊಂಡು Eೆೆದು$ೊಂಡು Eೆೆದು$ೊಂಡು Eೆೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಾ ಾ ಾ ಾ ಇಲNZದc7ೆ ಇಲNZದc7ೆ ಇಲNZದc7ೆ ಇಲNZದc7ೆ ಇHೇ ಇHೇ ಇHೇ ಇHೇ ೕ ೕ ೕ ೕ ನೆ ನೆ ನೆ ನೆ ಮXಾ/Hೆ ಮXಾ/Hೆ ಮXಾ/Hೆ ಮXಾ/Hೆ $ೊಡುವ`ZಲN $ೊಡುವ`ZಲN $ೊಡುವ`ZಲN $ೊಡುವ`ZಲN, , , , ವರದOೆ ವರದOೆ ವರದOೆ ವರದOೆ Eೆರುವರುವ7ೆಗು Eೆರುವರುವ7ೆಗು Eೆರುವರುವ7ೆಗು Eೆರುವರುವ7ೆಗು ೕನು ೕನು ೕನು ೕನು ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ $ೆಲಸದವಳ_ $ೆಲಸದವಳ_ $ೆಲಸದವಳ_ $ೆಲಸದವಳ_. . . . ತುಂಾ ತುಂಾ ತುಂಾ ತುಂಾ hಾ7ಾ+ದ7ೆ hಾ7ಾ+ದ7ೆ hಾ7ಾ+ದ7ೆ hಾ7ಾ+ದ7ೆ $ೈ $ೈ $ೈ $ೈ $ಾಲು $ಾಲು $ಾಲು $ಾಲು ಮುದು ಮುದು ಮುದು ಮುದು ಕೂಸು<ೕ ಕೂಸು<ೕ ಕೂಸು<ೕ ಕೂಸು<ೕ , , , , ಅeೆ ಅeೆ ಅeೆ ಅeೆ ಇಲNHೇ ಇಲNHೇ ಇಲNHೇ ಇಲNHೇ ಇ7ೊ ಇ7ೊ ಇ7ೊ ಇ7ೊ ತರ ತರ ತರ ತರ -ಾ+aಡು -ಾ+aಡು -ಾ+aಡು -ಾ+aಡು< < < < , , , , ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು uೕವ uೕವ uೕವ uೕವ ೆದ$ೆ ೆದ$ೆ ೆದ$ೆ ೆದ$ೆ hಾS hಾS hಾS hಾS, , , , -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ ಮತು< ಮತು< ಮತು< ಮತು< HೈJಕ.ಾQ HೈJಕ.ಾQ HೈJಕ.ಾQ HೈJಕ.ಾQ Jಂ;ೆ Jಂ;ೆ Jಂ;ೆ Jಂ;ೆ ೕ+ರುEಾ<(ೆ ೕ+ರುEಾ<(ೆ ೕ+ರುEಾ<(ೆ ೕ+ರುEಾ<(ೆ. . . . ಎಎಎಎ----2 2 2 2 ಮತು< ಮತು< ಮತು< ಮತು< ಎಎಎಎ----3 3 3 3 ಆ7ೋWತರು ಆ7ೋWತರು ಆ7ೋWತರು ಆ7ೋWತರು ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ಮಗನು ಮಗನು ಮಗನು ಮಗನು " " " "$ಾ4 $ಾ4 $ಾ4 $ಾ4----1" 1" 1" 1" ಆWೕಸD ಆWೕಸD ಆWೕಸD ಆWೕಸD ಅವನ ಅವನ ಅವನ ಅವನ ;ೆjೕಟ ;ೆjೕಟ ;ೆjೕಟ ;ೆjೕಟ ೇ7ೆ ೇ7ೆ ೇ7ೆ ೇ7ೆ ಇHೆ ಇHೆ ಇHೆ ಇHೆ ಮG ಮG ಮG ಮG ಕುಟುಂಬದವೆ ಕುಟುಂಬದವೆ ಕುಟುಂಬದವೆ ಕುಟುಂಬದವೆ ಅದರ ಅದರ ಅದರ ಅದರ ೆ1ೆ ೆ1ೆ ೆ1ೆ ೆ1ೆ ೊ<ಲN ೊ<ಲN ೊ<ಲN ೊ<ಲN, , , , ಅದು ಅದು ಅದು ಅದು ಮೆ ಮೆ ಮೆ ಮೆ ಅಥ/ ಅಥ/ ಅಥ/ ಅಥ/ ಆಗಲN ಆಗಲN ಆಗಲN ಆಗಲN. . . . ಈಗಲೂ ಈಗಲೂ ಈಗಲೂ ಈಗಲೂ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ನನ> ಮಗ ೆ ಮಗ ೆ ಮಗ ೆ ಮಗ ೆ hೆಣುC hೆಣುC hೆಣುC hೆಣುC $ೊeೋ $ೊeೋ $ೊeೋ $ೊeೋ Eಾb Eಾb Eಾb Eಾb---- ತಂHೆಯರು ತಂHೆಯರು ತಂHೆಯರು ತಂHೆಯರು ನಮG ನಮG ನಮG ನಮG ಮ(ೆ ಮ(ೆ ಮ(ೆ ಮ(ೆ ಮುಂHೆ ಮುಂHೆ ಮುಂHೆ ಮುಂHೆ ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ೇ$ಾದಷುj ೇ$ಾದಷುj ೇ$ಾದಷುj ೇ$ಾದಷುj tನ> tನ> tನ> tನ>, , , , ಹಣ ಹಣ ಹಣ ಹಣ, , , , $ಾರು $ಾರು $ಾರು $ಾರು ಬಂಗ1ೆ ಬಂಗ1ೆ ಬಂಗ1ೆ ಬಂಗ1ೆ ೕಡಲು ೕಡಲು ೕಡಲು ೕಡಲು Rದ‰Hಾc7ೆ Rದ‰Hಾc7ೆ Rದ‰Hಾc7ೆ Rದ‰Hಾc7ೆ, , , , ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ೈದು ೈದು ೈದು ೈದು, , , , -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ Jಂ;ೆ Jಂ;ೆ Jಂ;ೆ Jಂ;ೆ ೕ+ರುEಾ<7ೆ ೕ+ರುEಾ<7ೆ ೕ+ರುEಾ<7ೆ ೕ+ರುEಾ<7ೆ. . . . . . . - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 hಾ ಅ)ೕ$ಾ HೇಶದN .ಾಸ!ರುವ ಎ-1 ಆ7ೋWತನ ಸhೋದXಾದ ಎ-5 ಆ7ೋWEೆಯು ಸHಾ ೕ& ನN ಎ-1 ಆ7ೋWತ ೆ ;ಾO-1 ರವರನು> hೆtfನ ವರದOೆ ತಂದ7ೆ -ಾತ ಮ(ೆಯN ಇಟುj$ೊ9: ಇಲNZದc7ೆ , 29 29 29 29----11 11 11 11----2022 2022 2022 2022 ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ೆ9ೆU ೆ9ೆU ೆ9ೆU ೆ9ೆU 5 5 5 5----00 00 00 00 ಗಂ5ೆೆ ಗಂ5ೆೆ ಗಂ5ೆೆ ಗಂ5ೆೆ ಸಮಯದN ಸಮಯದN ಸಮಯದN ಸಮಯದN ಎಎಎಎ----1 1 1 1 ಆ7ೋWತನು ಆ7ೋWತನು ಆ7ೋWತನು ಆ7ೋWತನು ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO----1 1 1 1 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ಗ}/‡ ಗ}/‡ ಗ}/‡ ಗ}/‡ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು (ೋಡHೇ (ೋಡHೇ (ೋಡHೇ (ೋಡHೇ " " " "(ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು ಎ•ೆjೕ ಎ•ೆjೕ ಎ•ೆjೕ ಎ•ೆjೕ ೈದರೂ ೈದರೂ ೈದರೂ ೈದರೂ >ಂದ >ಂದ >ಂದ >ಂದ ಏನು ಏನು ಏನು ಏನು ಪSŽ ಪSŽ ಪSŽ ಪSŽ ಇಲN.ೆಂದು ಇಲN.ೆಂದು ಇಲN.ೆಂದು ಇಲN.ೆಂದು ಅಡುೆ ಅಡುೆ ಅಡುೆ ಅಡುೆ ಮ(ೆಯNದc ಮ(ೆಯNದc ಮ(ೆಯNದc ಮ(ೆಯNದc wಾಕುವನು> wಾಕುವನು> wಾಕುವನು> wಾಕುವನು> Eೆೆದು$ೊಂಡು Eೆೆದು$ೊಂಡು Eೆೆದು$ೊಂಡು Eೆೆದು$ೊಂಡು aೕRದುc aೕRದುc aೕRದುc aೕRದುc, , , , ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO----1 1 1 1 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ತWŠ ತWŠ ತWŠ ತWŠR$ೊಂ+ರುEಾ<7ೆ R$ೊಂ+ರುEಾ<7ೆ R$ೊಂ+ರುEಾ<7ೆ R$ೊಂ+ರುEಾ<7ೆ. . . . ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO----1 1 1 1 ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ತ1ೆ ತ1ೆ ತ1ೆ ತ1ೆ ಕೂದಲು ಕೂದಲು ಕೂದಲು ಕೂದಲು J+ದು J+ದು J+ದು J+ದು $ೈಗ9ಂದ $ೈಗ9ಂದ $ೈಗ9ಂದ $ೈಗ9ಂದ ಹ1ೆN ಹ1ೆN ಹ1ೆN ಹ1ೆN -ಾ+ದುc -ಾ+ದುc -ಾ+ದುc -ಾ+ದುc, , , , ಇದಂದ ಇದಂದ ಇದಂದ ಇದಂದ ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO----1 1 1 1 ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ಬಲ ಬಲ ಬಲ ಬಲ S!ೆ S!ೆ S!ೆ S!ೆ ]ೆ5ಾjQ ]ೆ5ಾjQ ]ೆ5ಾjQ ]ೆ5ಾjQ, , , , ರಕ<ಾಯ ರಕ<ಾಯ ರಕ<ಾಯ ರಕ<ಾಯ ಮತು< ಮತು< ಮತು< ಮತು<, , , , ಊತಾಯ.ಾQರುತ<Hೆ ಊತಾಯ.ಾQರುತ<Hೆ ಊತಾಯ.ಾQರುತ<Hೆ ಊತಾಯ.ಾQರುತ<Hೆ. . . . ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO----2 2 2 2 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO----1 1 1 1 ರವರನು> ರವರನು> ರವರನು> ರವರನು> ಕ7ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಕ7ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಕ7ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಕ7ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ತವರು ತವರು ತವರು ತವರು ಮ(ೆೆ ಮ(ೆೆ ಮ(ೆೆ ಮ(ೆೆ ಕ7ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಕ7ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಕ7ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಕ7ೆದು$ೊಂಡು hೋQರುEಾ<7ೆ hೋQರುEಾ<7ೆ hೋQರುEಾ<7ೆ hೋQರುEಾ<7ೆ. . . . ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO----1 1 1 1 ರವೆ ರವೆ ರವೆ ರವೆ hೆಣುC hೆಣುC hೆಣುC hೆಣುC ಮಗು ಮಗು ಮಗು ಮಗು ಜ Rದುc ಜ Rದುc ಜ Rದುc ಜ Rದುc, , , , ಆ7ೋWತರು ಆ7ೋWತರು ಆ7ೋWತರು ಆ7ೋWತರು ಮಗುವನು> ಮಗುವನು> ಮಗುವನು> ಮಗುವನು> (ೋಡಲು (ೋಡಲು (ೋಡಲು (ೋಡಲು hೋQರುವ`ZಲN hೋQರುವ`ZಲN hೋQರುವ`ZಲN hೋQರುವ`ZಲN. . . . Z(ಾಂಕ Z(ಾಂಕ Z(ಾಂಕ Z(ಾಂಕ:12/06/2024 :12/06/2024 :12/06/2024 :12/06/2024 ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO----1 1 1 1 ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ಮಗಳ ಮಗಳ ಮಗಳ ಮಗಳ ಹುಟುj ಹುಟುj ಹುಟುj ಹುಟುj ಹಬ˜ದ ಹಬ˜ದ ಹಬ˜ದ ಹಬ˜ದ ಪಯುಕ< ಪಯುಕ< ಪಯುಕ< ಪಯುಕ< ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO ;ಾO----1 1 1 1 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ಎಎಎಎ----1 1 1 1 ಆ7ೋWತನನು> ಆ7ೋWತನನು> ಆ7ೋWತನನು> ಆ7ೋWತನನು> ಕ7ೆZದುc ಕ7ೆZದುc ಕ7ೆZದುc ಕ7ೆZದುc, , , , ಎಎಎಎ----1 1 1 1 ಆ7ೋWತನು ಆ7ೋWತನು ಆ7ೋWತನು ಆ7ೋWತನು (ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು (ಾನು ಬರುವ`ZಲN ಬರುವ`ZಲN ಬರುವ`ZಲN ಬರುವ`ZಲN. . . . ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ಮತು< ಮತು< ಮತು< ಮತು< ಮG ಮG ಮG ಮG Xಾವ`Hೇ Xಾವ`Hೇ Xಾವ`Hೇ Xಾವ`Hೇ ಸಂಬಂಧ!ರುವ`ZಲN.ೆಂದು ಸಂಬಂಧ!ರುವ`ZಲN.ೆಂದು ಸಂಬಂಧ!ರುವ`ZಲN.ೆಂದು ಸಂಬಂಧ!ರುವ`ZಲN.ೆಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಏರುಧ™ ಯ ಏರುಧ™ ಯ ಏರುಧ™ ಯ ಏರುಧ™ ಯNNNN ೈZರುEಾ<(ೆ ೈZರುEಾ<(ೆ ೈZರುEಾ<(ೆ ೈZರುEಾ<(ೆ.... ಎ-1 ಂದ ಎ-4 ಆ7ೋWತರು ಎ-5 ಆ7ೋWಯ ದುಷ]ೇರೆbಂದ ;ಾO-1 ರವೆ hೆtfನ ವರದOೆಾQ ಹ1ೆN -ಾ+, HೈJಕ.ಾQ ಮತು< -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ uೕವ ೆದ$ೆ hಾS -ಾನRಕ.ಾQ ಮತು< HೈJಕ.ಾQ Jಂ;ೆ ೕ+ರುವ`ದು ಪಕರಣದ ತ Aೆbಂದ ದೃಢಪijರುತ<Hೆ. ಆದcಂದ ಆ7ೋWತರ !ರುಧ› ಕಲಂ 109, 498(ಎ), 323, 504, 506 7ೆ/! 34 ಐWR ಮತು< 3, 4 +W ಆxj ಅನoಯ Hೊ•ಾ7ೋಪೆ. .ೇದ(ೆ: ಆ7ೋWತರ ?ೈ0 ನಂಬಗ/ಳ R+ಆD ಾQ ಮನ! -ಾ+ದುc, ಪeೆದು ಕಲಂ 193(9) BNSS ಅ+ಯN ಘನ (ಾ4Xಾಲಯ$ೆK .ೇZR$ೊಳ:ೇ$ಾQರುತ<Hೆ.” (Emphasis added) A perusal of the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet would clearly indicate horrendous offences committed by the husband who has indulged in grave overt acts upon the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 wife, while the allegations against accused Nos.2 to 4 is only of instigating the husband/accused No.1 to behave in the manner that he has behaved with the complainant. Insofar as accused No.5 is concerned, it is an admitted fact that she is not even residing in India for the last 20 years. She is residing in the United States of America, to which the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant would accept the fact, but contends that accused No.5 over the phone used to instigate accused No.1 to behave in the manner that he has behaved. 9. The Apex Court, in a catena of judgments, holds that proceedings cannot be permitted to be continued against the family members of the husband, especially those not residing in the matrimonial home, when the allegations do not constitute the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. 9.1. The Apex Court in the case of BELIDE SWAGATH KUMAR v. STATE OF TELANGANA1, has held as follows: “….. ….. ….. 12025 SCC OnLine SC 2890 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 18. Section 498A of the IPC deals with offences committed by the husband or relatives of the husband subjecting cruelty towards the wife. The said provision reads as under: “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 19. Further, Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act talk about the penalty for giving or taking or demanding a dowry. “3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.— (1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more. Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,— - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 (a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act; (b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act: Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given. 4. Penalty for demanding dowry.— If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.” 20. An offence is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC when a husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty, which may result in imprisonment for a term extending up to three years and a fine. The Explanation under Section 498A of the IPC defines “cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC to mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b). The first limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 Section 498A of the IPC states that “cruelty” means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that cruelty means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Further, clause (b) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC states that cruelty would also include harassment of the woman where such harassment is to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 21. Further, Section 3 of the DP Act deals with the penalty for giving or taking dowry. It states that any person who engages in giving, taking, or abetting the exchange of dowry, shall face a punishment of imprisonment for a minimum of five years and a fine of not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the dowry, whichever is greater. Section 4 of the DP Act talks of penalty for demanding dowry. It states that any person demanding dowry directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardians of a bride or bridegroom shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. 22. The issue for consideration is whether, given the facts and circumstances of the case and after examining the FIR and the Complaint Case, the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings against the appellants arising out of FIR No. 29 of 2022 dated 27.01.2022 and the Complaint Case No. 1067 of 2022 under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. 23. Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases where the allegations have to - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law. The allegations put forth by the complainant-respondent No. 2 have been considered by us. In our view, they reflect the daily wear and tear of marriage and can, in no way, be categorised as cruelty. The act of the accused-appellant of sending money back to his family members cannot be misconstrued in a way that leads to a criminal prosecution. The allegation that the accused- appellant forced the complainant-respondent No. 2 to maintain an excel sheet of all the expenses, even if taken on the face value, cannot come under the definition of cruelty. The monetary and financial dominance of the accused-appellant, as alleged by the complainant-respondent No. 2, cannot qualify as an instance of cruelty, especially in the absence of any tangible mental or physical harm caused. The said situation is a mirror reflection of the Indian society where men of the households often try to dominate and take charge of the finances of the women but criminal litigation cannot become a gateway or a tool to settle scores and pursue personal vendettas. Furthermore, the other allegations of the complainant-respondent No. 2 such as lack of care on the part of the husband-the accused-appellant during pregnancy and postpartum and constant taunts about her after-birth weight, if accepted prima facie, at best reflect poorly upon the character of the accused-appellant but the same cannot amount to cruelty so as to make him suffer through the process of litigation. 24. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the complainant-respondent No. 2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that the husband and his family along with the accused-appellant herein mentally harassed her with a demand of dowry, the complainant-respondent No. 2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. Although she has alleged that an amount totalling to Rupees One Crore was demanded by the accused-appellant and his family members, the complainant-respondent No. 2 has failed to put forth any evidence or material on record to elaborate or substantiate the same. Furthermore, the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 complainant-respondent No. 2 has failed to impress the court as to how the said alleged harassment has caused her any injury, mental or physical. There has been no remote or proximate act or omission attributed to the accused-appellant that implicates him or assigns him any specific role in the said FIR for the offence of 498A of the IPC. Merely stating that the accused-appellant has mentally harassed the complainant-respondent No. 2 with respect to a demand of dowry does not fulfil the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC especially in the face of absence of any cogent material or evidence on record to substantiate the said allegations. The term “cruelty” cannot be established without specific instances. The tendency of invoking these sections, without mentioning any specific details, weakens the case of prosecution and casts serious aspersions on the viability of the version of the complainant. Therefore, this Court cannot ignore the missing specifics in an FIR which is the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State. In such cases involving allegations of cruelty and harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against perpetrators in specific terms to involve such perpetrators into the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them and therefore mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such persons would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings. 25. In this regard, it would be apposite to rely on the judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (“Bhajan Lal”) with particular reference to paragraph 102 therein, where this Court observed: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 26. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial dictum, we find that none of the offences alleged against the accused-appellant herein is made out. In fact, we find that the allegations of cruelty, mental harassment and voluntarily causing hurt against the accused-appellant herein have been made with a mala-fide intent with vague and general allegations and therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and particularly sub-paragraphs (1) and (7) of paragraph 102, extracted above, squarely apply to the facts of these cases. It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution emanating from the FIR and consequent Complaint Case No. 1067 of 2022 to continue. 27. Furthermore, at this juncture, we find it appropriate to quote the judgment of this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 wherein it was observed: “27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 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. xxx 30. The inclusion of Section 498-A 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 498-A 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 scrutinised, 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 498-A IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. 31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498-A IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant, husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498-A IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.”.” (Emphasis supplied) 9.2. The Apex Court in the case of MARAM NIRMALA v. STATE OF TELANGANA2, has held as follows: “….. ….. ….. 12. The appellant(s) herein are the mother-in-law and father- in-law of respondent No. 2. They had filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings instituted against them in C.C. No. 338/2023 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise offence) at Nalgonda alleging offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. 13. By the impugned order, the said criminal petition has been disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant(s) herein to seek discharge in accordance with law. Hence, this appeal. 14. The case at hand pertains to allegations of cruelty and dowry demand made by the respondent No. 2 against the appellant(s) herein. A bare perusal of the FIR however, shows that the allegations made by respondent No. 2 are vague and omnibus inasmuch as there is an absence of any specific instance or occasion detailed with particulars 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2913 - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 wherein the appellant(s) demanded dowry from respondent No. 2 and on refusal of the same, subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. The only allegations levelled by respondent No. 2 against the appellants herein are that subsequent to the birth of her daughter, the conduct of her husband underwent a change, which is stated to have been on account of the alleged inducement exercised by the in-laws including the appellant(s) herein for the purpose of demanding additional dowry and that pursuant to the counselling conducted at the Women Police Station, Nalgonda, although the husband of respondent No. 2 and his family assured that she would be treated properly, they nevertheless continued to subject respondent No. 2 to mental and physical cruelty. 15. We therefore find that the aforesaid allegations levelled against the appellant(s), even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offences so as to warrant the initiation of criminal proceedings. 16. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the appellant(s) brought to our notice the judgment of this Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 (“Dara Lakshmi Narayana”) as well as other judgments which squarely apply to this case. We have perused the same. 17. This Court speaking through one of us (B.V. Nagarathna, J.) in Dara Lakshmi Narayana, while dealing with the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings instituted by the respondent wife therein against her husband and in- laws who were charged with offences punishable under Sections 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961, held as follows: “27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 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. xxx 30. The inclusion of Section 498-A 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 498-AIPC 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 scrutinised, 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 498-A 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. xxx 31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498-A IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant, husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498-A IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case. xxx 34. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by Respondent 2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against Appellant 1 and his family members i.e. Appellants 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within Category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426]. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.” (underlining by us) 18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the judgment of this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana would apply. Hence, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The proceedings instituted against the appellant(s) in C.C. No. 338/2023 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise offence) at Nalgonda stand quashed in relation to the appellants herein.” (Emphasis supplied) - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 9.3. The Apex Court in the case of GHANSHYAM SONI v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)3, has held as follows: “….. ….. ….. 10. A perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the complainant are that in the year 1999, the Appellant inflicted mental and physical cruelty upon her for bringing insufficient dowry. The Complainant refers to few instances of such atrocities, however the allegations are generic, and rather ambiguous. The allegations against the family members, who have been unfortunately roped in, is that they used to instigate the Appellant husband to harass the Complainant wife, and taunted the Complainant for not bringing enough dowry; however, there is no specific incident of harassment or any evidence to that effect. Similarly, the allegations against the five out of six sisters that they used to insult the Complainant and demanded dowry articles from her, and upon failure beat her up, but there is not even a cursory mention of the incident. An allegation has also been made against a tailor named Bhagwat that he being a friend of the Appellant instigated him against the Complainant, and was allegedly instrumental in blowing his greed. Such allegations are merely accusatory and contentious in nature, and do not elaborate a concrete picture of what may have transpired. For this reason alone, and that the evidence on record is clearly inconsistent with the accusations, the version of the Complainant seems implausible and unreliable. The following observation in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Home, fits perfectly to the present scenario: “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.” 32025 SCC OnLine SC 1301 - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 11. As regards the Appellant, the purportedly specific allegations levelled against him are also obscure in nature. Even if the allegations and the case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, apart from the bald allegations without any specifics of time, date or place, there is no incriminating material found by the prosecution or rather produced by the complainant to substantiate the ingredients of “cruelty” under section 498A IPC, as recently observed in the case of JaydedeepsinhPravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh. The Complainant has admittedly failed to produce any medical records or injury reports, x-ray reports, or any witnesses to substantiate her allegations.We cannot ignore the fact that the Complainant even withdrew her second Complaint dt. 06.12.1999 six days later on 12.12.1999. There is also no evidence to substantiate the purported demand for dowry allegedly made by the Appellant or his family and the investigative agencies in their own prudence have not added sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to the chargesheet. 12. In this respect, the Sessions Court has applied its judicial mind to the allegations in the FIR & the material on record, and has rightly discharged the Appellants of the offences under section 498A & 34 IPC. Notwithstanding the said observation by the Sessions Court that the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out, the discharge of the Appellant merely because the Complainant is a police officer is erroneous and reflects poorly on the judicial decision making, which must be strictly based on application of judicial principles to the merits of the case. On the other hand, the High Court vide the Impugned Order has traversed one step further and overtly emphasised that simply because the Complainant is a police officer, it cannot be assumed that she could not have been a victim of cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws. We agree with the sensitive approach adopted by the High Court in adjudicating the present case, however a judicial decision cannot be blurred to the actual facts and circumstances of a case. In this debate, it is only reasonable to re-iterate that the Sessions Court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction and the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, must - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 delve into the material on record to assess what the Complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. In the present case, such scrutiny of the allegations in the FIR and the material on record reveals that no prima facie is made out against the Appellant or his family. It is also borne from the record that the divorce decree of their marriage, has already been passed, and the same has never been challenged by the Complainant wife, and hence has attained finality. Upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and that the alleged incidents pertain to the year 1999 and since then the parties have moved on with their respective lives, it would be unjust and unfair if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial. 13. It is rather unfortunate that the Complainant being an officer of the State has initiated criminal machinery in such a manner, where the aged parents-in- law, five sisters and one tailor have been arrayed as an accused. Notwithstanding the possibility of truth behind the allegations of cruelty, this growing tendency to misuse legal provisions has time and again been condemned by this Court. The observations in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand aptly captures this concern.” (Emphasis supplied) 9.4. The Apex Court in the case of RAJESH CHADDHA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH4, has held as follows: “….. ….. ….. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the record, the question remains whether the High Court vide Impugned Order dt. 14.11.2018 whilst exercising its revisionary jurisdiction, was correct in upholding the conviction of the Appellant under Section 498A IPC & Section 4 D.P. Act, 42025 SCC OnLine SC 1094 - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 1961. In that respect, it is prudent to examine the statutory provisions, which are as under: “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.— (1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more. Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,— (a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride without any demand having been made in that behalf : Page 12 of 26 Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act; (b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom without any demand having been made in that behalf : Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act : Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given. - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 4. Penalty for demanding dowry.— If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees : Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.” 8. At the outset, an act of ‘cruelty’ for the purpose of Section 498A, corresponds to a willful conduct of such nature, that may cause danger to the life, limb and health of the woman, which is inclusive of the mental and physical health and the harassment caused to her, by coercing her to meet unlawful demands or impossible standards. Further, the demand for dowry in terms of Section 3 and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 refers to both a direct or indirect manner of demand for dowry made by the husband or his family members. In order to meet the threshold of the offences under Section 498A IPC & Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, the allegations cannot be ambiguous or made in thin air. 9. In the present case, the allegations made by the Complainant are vague, omnibus and bereft of any material particulars to substantiate this threshold. Apart from claiming that Appellant husband harassed her for want of dowry, the Complainant has not given any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. The allegations in the FIR, and the depositions of the prosecution witnesses suggest that on multiple occasions, the Complainant wife was ousted from the matrimonial house, and kicked and punched in the presence of her father, PW-2 herein and she was repeatedly tormented with dowry demands, and when she was unable to honor them, the Appellant and her family physically beat her up; whereas she has not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. It is alleged that the Complainant suffered a miscarriage, as she fell down, when the Appellant and her family who - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 pushed her out of the house; however, no medical document from any medical institution or hospital or nursery was produced to substantiate the allegations. 10. Upon carefully considering the record, we find that apart from the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations of harassment and acts of cruelty within the scope of Section 498A of IPC, and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961. For this reason, we find merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, and are of the considered view that there is no material on record to establish the allegations of hurt or miscarriage, and of hurt and criminal intimidation in terms of Section 323 r/w 34 and Section 506 IPC respectively. The Trial Court has rightly held that evidence of the Complainant is the only strong evidence that she sustained injuries on various parts of her body due to the physical assault by the accused persons, and that there was no medical examination conducted by the Complainant, so as to prove that the miscarriage was a consequence of the physical assault. 11. The Trial Court has indeed applied its judicial mind to the material on record whilst acquitting the Appellant and the co-accused parents-in-law for offences under Section 323 r/w 34 & Section 506 IPC. However, it appears that the Trial Court had passed the order of conviction of the Appellant under Section 498A IPC & Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, merely on the possibility that the allegations and the depositions of the PW-1 corroborated by PW2, are true and correct. Although one cannot deny the emotional or mental torture that the Complainant may have undergone in the marriage, however a cursory or plausible view cannot be conclusive proof to determine the guilt of an individual under Section 498A & Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, especially to obviate malicious criminal prosecution of family members in matrimonial disputes. In this respect, we also cannot ignore that the FIR dt. 20.12.1999 was registered after the Appellant had filed the Divorce Petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 06.02.1999. In consideration thereof and that the Complainant had cohabited with the Appellant - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 only for a period of about a year, it appears that the FIR registered by the Complainant was not genuine. 12. In respect thereof, the High Court while exercising its revisionary jurisdiction ought to have examined the correctness of decision of the Trial Court in light of the material on record, which reveals nothing incriminatory against the Appellant to sustain a conviction under Section 498A IPC or Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961. Although we do not agree with the submission on behalf of the Appellant that the Impugned Order dt. 14.11.2018 was passed in absentia, however the High Court was well within its revisionary powers to discern whether an FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom were sustainable. In all certainty, it could have saved 6 years' worth of time for the Appellant, who has endured litigation for over 20 years as of today. 13. Notwithstanding the merits of the case, we are distressed with the manner, the offences under Section 498A IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 are being maliciously roped in by Complainant wives, insofar as aged parents, distant relatives, married sisters living separately, are arrayed as accused, in matrimonial matters. This growing tendency to append every relative of the husband, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations made by the Complainant wife or her family members, and vitiates the very objective of a protective legislation. The observations made by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana appropriately encapsulates this essence 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 particularised allegations cannot form the basis - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 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.” 14. The term “cruelty” is subject to rather cruel misuse by the parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific instances, to say the least. The tendency of roping these sections, without mentioning any specific dates, time or incident, weakens the case of the prosecutions, and casts serious suspicion on the viability of the version of a Complainant. We cannot ignore the missing specifics in a criminal complaint, which is the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State. Be that as it may, we are informed that the marriage of the Appellant has already been dissolved and the divorce decree has attained finality, hence any further prosecution of the Appellant will only tantamount to an abuse of process of law.” (Emphasis supplied) 9.5. The Apex Court in the case of KAMAL v. STATE OF GUJARAT5, has held as follows: “….. ….. ….. 10. A perusal of the impugned FIR would disclose that the complainant at the time of lodging the FIR had been living with her own parents. The allegations are that initially, after marriage, there were no issues. Later, when parents in law started 52025 SCC OnLine SC 1726 - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 living with her husband, she had to suffer taunts at their end on trivial issues. When she complained about this to her husband, he sided with his parents and even assaulted the complainant. It is alleged that she informed her parents and uncle about this, who counselled her to have patience in the interest of the family. FIR also discloses that since 2008 she is having a job. Initially with Ugam Solutions and, later, as a lecturer for nine years. She admits of having stayed at different places in rented accommodation post her marriage. However, she alleges that she used to hand over her salary to her father-in-law who used to deprive her of her money. Besides that, she alleges of her husband having an affair with his business partner for the last two years and because of that he had been constantly torturing her, both physically and mentally, to end the relationship and with that motive divorce petition has been filed. 11. What is important, for the purposes of deciding this case, is that in the FIR there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry by the accused. Further, the allegation of harassment of the complainant at the instance of the parents in law is limited to extending taunts and custody related issues of minor children. However, there is no disclosure about the nature of those taunts. Admittedly, the second respondent was married to the first appellant in the year 2005 and for last several years since before lodging the FIR, the complainant had been working and staying in rented accommodations at different places.Besides that, the FIR was lodged on 20.07.2019, just three days after service of summons of the divorce proceedings initiated by the first appellant. In these circumstances, we will have to consider whether the impugned proceedings are vexatious and mala fide, particularly in the context of a matrimonial dispute where time and again Courts have been cautioned to be circumspect to obviate malicious prosecution of family members of the main accused. 12. Even if we assume that there are some allegations of assault and of physical and mental torture of the complainant, but they are against the husband. As against the parents in law, the - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 allegations are only of extending taunts and of not parting with the money for managing household expenses. Specific details in respect of those taunts have not been disclosed. Moreover, a few taunts here and there is a part of everyday life which for happiness of the family are usually ignored. Interestingly, as per own allegations in the FIR, the complainant admits that when she reported those issues to her parents and uncle, she was counselled to bear patience. In the circumstances, in our considered view, no case to proceed against the parents in law, namely, the second and third appellant is made out. In so far as the first appellant is concerned, there are allegations of physical and mental torture of the complainant at his behest. Consequently, the case may proceed qua the first appellant.” (Emphasis supplied) 9.6. The Apex Court in the case of DARA LAKSHMI NARAYANA v. STATE OF TELANGANA6, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 20. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by Respondent 2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that Appellant 1 harassed her and that Appellants 2 to 6 instigated him to do so, Respondent 2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. 21. Further, the record reveals that Respondent 2 on 3-10-2021 left the matrimonial house leading Appellant 1 to file a police complaint on 5-10-2021. When the police officials traced her, Respondent 2 addressed a letter dated 11-11-2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting to close the complaint 62024 SCC OnLine SC 3682 - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 made by Appellant 1. In the said letter, Respondent 2 admitted that she left her matrimonial house after quarrelling with Appellant 1 as she was talking to a person by name Govindan over the phone for the past ten days continuously. She further admitted that Appellant 1 was taking good care of her. She also stated that she will not engage in such actions in future. Despite that, in 2021 itself, Respondent 2 once again left the matrimonial house leaving Appellant 1 and also her minor children. 22. Losing hope in the marriage, Appellant 1 issued a legal notice to Respondent 1 seeking divorce by mutual consent on 13-12-2021. Instead of responding to the said legal notice issued by Appellant 1, Respondent 2 lodged the present FIR No. 82 of 2022 on 1-2-2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda under Section 498- AIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act. 23. Given the facts of this case and in view of the timing and context of the FIR, we find that Respondent 2 left the matrimonial house on 3-10-2021 after quarrelling with Appellant 1 with respect to her interactions with a third person in their marriage. Later she came back to her matrimonial house assuring to have a cordial relationship with Appellant 1. However, she again left the matrimonial house. When Appellant 1 issued a legal notice seeking divorce on 13-12-2021, the present FIR came to be lodged on 1-2-2022 by Respondent 2. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the FIR filed by Respondent 2 is not a genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with Appellant 1 and his family members. 24. The learned counsel for Respondent 1 State contended that a prima facie case was made out against the appellants for harassing Respondent 2 and demanding dowry from her. However, we observe that the allegations made by Respondent 2 in the FIR seem to be motivated by a desire for retribution rather than a legitimate grievance. Further, the allegations attributed against the appellants herein are vague and omnibus. 25. Respondent 2 has not contested the present case either before the High Court or this Court. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Respondent 2 has not only deserted Appellant 1 but has also abandoned her two children as - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 well, who are now in the care and custody of Appellant 1. The counsel for the appellants has specifically submitted that Respondent 2 has shown no inclination to re-establish any relationship with her children. 26. Insofar as Appellants 2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against Appellants 2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate Appellant 1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple, namely, Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 and their children. Appellants 2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellants 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur, respectively. 27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 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. In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant and his wife i.e. the second respondent herein resided at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where he was working in Southern - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 Railways. They were married in the year 2015 and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the second respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore, it cannot be believed that there was any harassment for dowry during the said period or that there was any matrimonial discord. Further, the second respondent in response to the missing complaint filed by the first appellant herein on 5- 10-2021 addressed a letter dated 11-11-2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting for closure of the said complaint as she had stated that she had left the matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a quarrel with Appellant 1 because of one Govindan with whom the second respondent was in contact over telephone for a period of ten days. She had also admitted that she would not repeat such acts in future. In the above conspectus of facts, we find that the allegations of the second respondent against the appellants herein are too far-fetched and are not believable. 29. We find that the High Court noted that there were also allegations against Respondent 2 and matrimonial disputes are pending between the parties. Therefore, the High Court came to the conclusion that custodial interrogation of the appellants was not necessary and protected the personal liberty of the appellants directing the investigating officer not to arrest the appellants till the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge- sheet. Albeit the said findings and observations, the High Court ultimately refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellants. 30. The inclusion of Section 498-AIPC 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 498-AIPC 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 scrutinised, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-AIPC 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 hisfamily in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. 31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498-AIPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant, husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498-AIPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case. 32. In the above context, this Court 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] observed as follows : (SCC p. 698, para 12) “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes 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 - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.” 33. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives 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 complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 34. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by Respondent 2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against Appellant 1 and his family members i.e. Appellants 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within Category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.” (Emphasis supplied) On a coalesce of the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court, what would unmistakably emerge is that the family members of the husband cannot be drawn into the proceedings for offences punishable under Section 498A or otherwise, merely on omnibus allegations of instigation of harassment. - 42 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 10. In the light of the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court and that nothing being found against accused Nos.2 to 5, and everything found against the husband/accused No.1, permitting further proceedings against accused No.2 to 5 would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The proceedings in Crime No.343/2024 qua accused Nos.2 to 5 stands quashed. (iii) The proceedings in Crime No.343/2024 qua the accused No.1-husband shall continue. (iv) The observations made in the course of this order is only for the purpose of consideration of the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and the same shall not bind or influence the conduct of investigation against accused No. - 43 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2276 CRL.P No. 11668 of 2024 Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

SRI NITHIN A S v. STATE BY

Judgment text