- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12258 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SHIVALEELA B. KODAD W/O BASAVARAJA M.KODAD, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 2. BASAVARAJA M. KODAD S/O LATE MAHANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT KASHIPURA MAIN ROAD, SIDDARAMA EXTENSION, 2ND CROSS, ”SAISTHUTHI NILAYA”, VINOBHA NAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHITRADURGA WOMENS POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. 2. SMT. LAKSHMI B.T., Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 W/O SHARATH B.K., CURRENTLY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT AMOGHA LAYOUT, BANK COLONY, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1; SRI PAVAN KUMAR N., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF COGNIZANCE DATED 13.10.2024 ONE PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE I A.S.C.J AND J.M.F.C CHITRADURGA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 506, 34, 498A, 504, 323 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET ONE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1/POLICE IN C.C.NO.971/2023 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.971 of 2023 registered for offences - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 punishable under Sections 506, 34, 498A, 504, 323 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Heard Sri T Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri B N Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Pavan Kumar N, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: Petitioners are Mother-in-law and Father-in-law of the 2nd respondent/complainant. The 2nd respondent/complainant and the accused No.1 get married on 27-05-2020. It transpires that the relationship between the two flounders. On floundering of the relationship, several proceedings are instituted by the wife against the husband and the in-laws or the husband against the wife, as the case would be. The issue in the lis pertains to setting the criminal law into motion against the Mother-in-law and Father-in-law, the accused Nos.3 and 2 respectively. The 2nd respondent registers a complaint on 06-06-2023 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 498A, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The said complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.62 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 of 2023. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet and the proceeding is registered as C.C. No. 971 of 2023. Registration of the C.C. is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel Sri Sunil S Rao appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that a perusal of the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet, as the case would be, would not indicate any of the ingredients that are necessary to drive home the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. Vague and omnibus statements are made in the complaint and also in the summary of the charge sheet by the complainant/2nd respondent. Therefore, he would submit that the proceedings be quashed as against accused Nos.2 and 3. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant submits that there are indeed complaints against the accused nos.2 and 3, on the demand of dowry. The complaint is narrated in great detail about the overt act committed by the petitioners intermittently upon the complainant, but would admit that they were not residing with - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 the family and did reside separately. But would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. The Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor also would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant in contending that the police after investigation have filed a charge sheet and in the light of the filing of the charge sheet, further proceedings must be permitted to be continued and it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The relationship between accused no.1 and the complainant and its floundering is a matter of record. The entire issue has now triggered from the complaint. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint, it reads as follows: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 “ೆ, ೕ ಇ ೆಕ ಮಾ ೕ ೇಷ ತದುಗ ಂದ, ಲ ! ".# ಗಂಡ ಶರ' ".(ೆ 34 ವಷ, ಗೃ+, ಂಾಯತ ಜ.ಾಂಗ, /ಾ 0ಾಸ #302, 3 .ೇ(ಾ, 23ಾ456 7ೇಔ9 .ಾಗರ:ಾ2 :ೆಂಗಳ<ರು 560072 ಸ=ಂತ ಊರು ಅ@ೕಘ 7ೇಔ9 :ಾ4ಂB (ಾ7ೋD, ತದುಗ 9513669445 2ಷಯ:- ಗಂಡ ಮತುE ಅವರ ಕFೆಯವರು ವರದ Gೆ Hರುಕುಳ (ೊಡುIEರುವ ಬೆK. ***** LೕಲMಂಡ 2ಾಸದ 0ಾNOಾದ ಲ !ೕ".# ಆದ .ಾನು ತಮRS (ೇT(ೊಳUVವW3ೇ.ೆಂದXೆ, ನನೆ ನಮR ತಂ3ೆ Yಾ Zವ@ಗKದ 2.ೋಬನಗರ 0ಾNOಾದ ಶರ' ".(ೆ. ತಂ3ೆ ಬಸವXಾಜ ಎಂ. (ೊಡ\ ಎಂಬುವ6ೆ (ೊಟು ^.ಾಂಕ: 27-12-2020 ರಂದು ತದುಗ ನಗರದ ZೕXಾಮ ಕ7ಾ4ಣ ಮಂಟಪದS ಸುaಾರು 30 ಲb ರೂಾ ಖಚು aಾe ಮದು0ೆ aಾeರುYಾEXೆ. ನನf ಗಂಡ ಶರ' :ೆಂಗಳ<6ನS 3(ೆ gೆ(ಾfಲhೕ ಕಂಪDಯS ಇಂhDಯ ಆ5 (ೆಲಸದSದುiದ6ಂದ ಮದು0ೆ ಸಮಯದS ಶರ' ರವ6ೆ ಸುaಾರು ಒಟು 12 Yೊಲ ತೂಕದ ಒಂದು ಬಂಾರದ kೈ , :ಾ 7ೈ9 /ಾಗೂ 3 ಉಂಗುರಗಳನುf /ಾಗೂ 3 (ೆh :ೆTV ಾaಾನನುf (ೊಟು ನನೆ ಸುaಾರು 30 Yೊಲದ ಬಂಾರದ ಆಭರಣಗಳನುf aಾeNದುi ಮದು0ೆ ಬgೆ ಮIEತರ ಖಚುಗTೆ ಸುaಾರು 2 ಲb ರೂಾ ನಗದು ಹಣ ವರದ GೆOಾ5 (ೊಟು ಮದು0ೆ aಾeರುYಾEXೆ. ಮದು0ೆ ನಂತರ .ಾನು ನನf ಗಂಡನ pೊYೆ Zವ@ಗK(ೆM /ೋ5ದುi ಅSಂದ .ಾವWಗಳU ನನf ಗಂಡ (ೆಲಸ aಾಡುIEರುವ ಸqಳ(ೆM .ಾನು ನನf ಗಂಡ ಶರ' aಾವ ಬಸವXಾr ಎಂ. (ೊಡ\ /ಾಗೂ ಅYೆE Zವೕ7ಾ ". (ೊಡ\ ಎಲSರೂ :ೆಂಗಳ<6ೆ /ೋ5ದುi ಅS h-201, 23ಾ456 XೆNFೆD, 23ಾ456 7ೇಔ9 pೊ4ೕI ನಗರ 7ಎ (ಾ, :ೆಂಗಳ<ರು ಇS ಅಾ9Lಂ9 ನS ಮ.ೆ aಾe 0ಾಸ0ಾ53ೆiವW. :ೆಂಗಳ<6ೆ /ೋ3ಾ5Dಂದಲೂ ನನೆ ನನf ಗಂಡ ಮತುE ಅYೆE, aಾವ ಎಲSರೂ Dನೆ DಮR ತಂ3ೆ Yಾ (ೊ#ರುವ ಬಂಾರದ ಒಡ0ೆಗಳನುf Yೆೆದು(ೊಂಡು :ಾ ಅಂತ (ೇಳUIEದiರು. .ಾನು ಊ6ೆ /ೋ3ಾಗ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 Yೆೆದು(ೊಂಡು ಬರುYೆEೕ.ೆಂತ /ೇTದರೂ (ೇಳ3ೇ ನನೆ ಬಂಾರವನುf ಈಗ7ೇ ತಂದು (ೊಡುವಂYೆ ಅYೆE aಾವ ಗಂಡ aಾ0ೆಗಂಡ ಎಲSರೂ 3ೈಕ ಮತುE aಾನNಕ0ಾ5 ಂNಸುIEದiರು. ಈ ಮuೆ4 2021 Lೕ ನS ಕXೋನ pಾNEOಾ5ದi6ಂದ .ಾವW :ೆಂಗಳ<ರು "ಟು Zವ@ಗK(ೆM ಬಂದು 0ಾಸ0ಾ53ೆiವW. .ಾನು ಂ¸É Yಾಳ7ಾಗ3ೇ 2021 ಜೂ @ದಲ 0ಾರದS ನನf 7ಾಂv kೈ , .ೆಕ, ಬೆ ಮIEತರ ಒಟು 30 Yೊಲದ ಬಂಾರದ ಒಡ0ೆಗಳನುf ನನf ಗಂಡDೆ 7ೋ ಕಟಲು ಮತುE "h.ೆ aಾಡ7ೆಂತ ಬಂಡ0ಾಳ(ಾM5 ತಂದು (ೊ#ರುYೆEೕ.ೆ. ಆLೕ7ೆ ಕXೋನ ಕeLOಾದ Lೕ7ೆ .ಾವW :ೆಂಗಳ<6ೆ 0ಾಪಾ3ೆವW. ನಂತರ :ೆಂಗಳ<6ನS ನನf ಗಂಡ ತನf ಾಲ ಕಟಲು DಮR ತಂ3ೆ Yಾ ಕFೆಂದ 40 ಲb ರೂಾ ಹಣ Yೆೆದು(ೊಂಡು ಬರುವಂYೆ ನನf ಗಂಡ ನನೆ ಪI^ನ :ೈಯುವWದು, ಕMಪWಟ 2kಾರಗಳನುf 3ೊಡwದು aಾe ಜಗಳ aಾಡುವWದು aಾಡುIEದiನು. ಇದನುf .ೋe ನನf ಅಣx.ಾದ ಪ^ೕy ಕುaಾರನು ನನf ಗಂಡDೆ ಆಗ Iಂಗಳ (ೊ.ೆ 0ಾರದS 5 ಲb ರೂಾ ನಗದು ಹಣವನುf :ೆಂಗಳ<6ೆ ತಂದು ನನf ಗಂಡDೆ (ೊ#ರುYಾE.ೆ. ಆLೕ7ೆ ಸ=ಲz ^ನ ಎಲSರೂ ಸುಮRDದುi ಆLೕ7ೆ Dನf ತಂ3ೆ ಕFೆಂದ ಮತEಷು ಹಣ ಮತುE ಒಂದು ಮ.ೆಯನುf YೆೆN(ೊಡು ಅಂತ ನನf ಗಂಡ ನನೆ :ೈಯುವWದು /ೊFೆಯುವWದು aಾಡುIEದiನು. ನನf ಅYೆE Dೕನು ತವರುಮ.ೆೆ /ೊದXೆ "ZÉÆÑÃ7ೆ ೌರಮRನ /ಾೆ 0ಾಪ ಬರುIEೕOಾ DೕವW ನಮೆ ಮದು0ೆ ಸಮಯದS ಏನೂ (ೊ#ಲS ಈಗ ನನf ಮಗDೆ ಒಂದು ಮ.ೆಯನುf YೆೆN(ೊಡುವಂYೆ Dನf ತಂ3ೆೆ (ೇಳU ಇಲS^ದiXೆ Dನfನುf ಾN ನನf ಮಗDೆ :ೇXೆ ಮದು0ೆ aಾಡುYೆEೕ0ೆ ಅಂYೆ7ಾS :ೈ3ಾಡುIEದiರು. ನಮR aಾವ ಹಣ ತರ^ದiXೆ ಇವಳನುf ಮ.ೆಂದ /ೊರೆ /ಾಕು Dನೆ /ೆ}ನ ವರದ Gೆ (ೊಡುವ ಹುಡು5ಯನುf ತಂದು ಮದು0ೆ aಾಡುYೆEೕ0ೆಂತ :ೈಯುIEದiರು. ೕ5ರು0ಾಗ ಇವರ ಂೆಯನುf Yಾಳ7ಾರ3ೇ .ಾನು 2kಾರವನುf ನನf ತಂ3ೆ Yಾ ಅಣxDೆ ITNದi6ಂದ ಅವರು ನನf ಗಂಡDೆ ತದುಗ(ೆM ಬರುವಂYೆ /ೇTದುi .ಾನು ಮತುE ನನf ಗಂಡ ಶರ' ಇಬ~ರು ೆೆಂಬ 2021 ರS ತದುಗದSರುವ ನಮR ಮ.ೆೆ ಬಂ3ೆವW. ತದುಗದ ನಮR ಮ.ೆಯS ನಮR ಅಣx ಪ^ೕಪನು ನನf ಗಂಡ ಶರ'Dೆ 10 ಲb ರೂಾ ಹಣವನುf (ೊ#ರುYಾE.ೆ. ಅSಗೂ ನನf ಗಂಡ ಅYೆE aಾವ ಸುಮR.ಾಗ3ೇ ಮYೆE ಪ3ೇ ಪ3ೇ ನನೆ ವರದ Gೆ ಹಣ(ಾM5 ಂೆ (ೊಡುIEದi6ಂದ 2021 ರ eೆಂಬ IಂಗಳಲೂS ಸಹ ನನf ತಂ3ೆ Yಾ ನನf ಗಂಡDೆ ಮYೊELR 5 ಲb ರೂಾ ಹಣ (ೊ#ರುYಾEXೆ. ಇ•ೆ7ಾS ಹಣ ಒಡ0ೆ Dೕeದರೂ ಸಹ ನನf ಗಂಡ, Dೕನು ತಂದ ಹಣ ಾ(ಾಗುವW^ಲS. ನನೆ (ೇವಲ 30 ಾ2ರ aಾತ ಸಂಬಳ ಬರುIEದುi hೕವ.ೋಾಯ(ೆM Dೕನು Dನf ತಂ3ೆ Yಾ ಮ.ೆಂದ ಹಣ, ಆNE Yೆೆದು(ೊಂಡು ಬರ:ೇಕು Dನೆ "# ಕೂಳU /ಾಕಲು .ಾ0ೇನು ಧಮಛತ ನFೆಸುIEಲS. Dೕನು ನಮR ಮ.ೆೆ "# ಊಟ aಾಡಲು ಬಂ^^iೕOಾ ಅಂYೆ7ಾS :ೈದು ನನೆ ತುಂ:ಾ /ೊFೆದು ತುಂ:ಾ Hರುಕುಳ (ೊ#ದುi ನನೆ ಾಯುವಂYೆ ಆ5ದi6ಂದ ಮತುE ನನf ಗಂಡ ನನfನುf ಕತುE ಸುH ಾಸಲು - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 ಪಯIfNರುYಾEXೆ. .ಾನು ಈ 2kಾರವನುf ತಂ3ೆ Yಾೆ ‚ೕ aಾe /ೇTದi6ಂದ ^.ಾಂಕ: 23-01-2022 11a.m ರಂದು ನƒಮ ತಂ3ೆ ತಂ3ೆ Iೆzೕಾ=„, ಅಣx ಪ^ೕಪ ಕMಪz ಮದನಾ=„ aಾವ ನಟXಾಜರವರು :ೆಂಗಳU6ೆ ಬಂದು ಇ•ೆ7ಾS Oಾ(ೆ ನಮR ಮಗTೆ YೊಂದXೆ (ೊಡುIE6 ಅಂತ (ೇTದi(ೆM ನನf ಗಂಡ ಅವXೆಲSರ ಎದು6ೆ ನನೆ /ೊFೆಯಲು ಬಂ3ಾಗ ನನf ಅಣx ಅಡw ಬಂದು ಗ7ಾgೆ "eNದುi ಗ7ಾgೆ 2(ೋಪ(ೆM /ೊ5ದುi (ೊ.ೆೆ ನನf ಗಂಡ ನನೆ ಮ.ೆಯSರ:ೇಡ ಅಂತ ನನfನುf ಮ.ೆಂದ /ೊರಗFೆ /ಾHದನು. ನನfನುf ನಮR ತಂ3ೆ ಅಣx 0ಾಪ ತದುಗ(ೆM ಬಂ3ಾಗ .ಾನು ನನೆ ಗಂಡ :ೇಕು ಅಂತ ನನf ತ…zಲS^ದiರೂ ನನf3ೇ ತಾz53ೆ ನಮR ತಂ3ೆ ಮತುE ಅಣxನವರು /ಾೆ aಾಡ:ಾರ^ತುE ಎಂYೆ7ಾS ಇ3ೊಂದು ಸಲ ಇದ.ೆf7ಾS ಮXೆತು ಚ.ಾf5Xೋಣ0ೆಂತ Lೇಜ aಾe3ೆiನು. ಆ3ಾಗೂ4 ನನf ಗಂಡ ನನೆ Dನf pೊYೆೆ ಇರಲು ಆಗುವW^ಲS Dೕನು ನನೆ :ೇಡ ಅಂತ /ೇTರುYಾE.ೆ. .ಾನು ಸುaಾರು ^ನಗಳU ನನf ತಂ3ೆ Yಾ ಮ.ೆಯSದುi ಮYೊEಂದು ಸಲ ನನೆ ಗಂಡ :ೇಕು ಅಂತ .ಾನು †ೆಬವ6 IಂಗಳS 0ಾಪ :ೆಂಗಳ<6ೆ /ೋ5ದುi ಆಗ ನ ನ ಗಂಡ .ಾವW 0ಾಸaಾಡುIEದi ಮ.ೆಯ 0ಾಸುE ಸ6ಲS. ಮ.ೆ ಬದೋಣ ಅಪz ಅಮRನ pೊYೆ :ೇಡ .ಾ2ಬ~Xೇ ಇXೋಣ ಅಂತ #302, 3 .ೇ(ಾ, 23ಾ456 7ೇಔ9 .ಾಗರ:ಾ2 ಯS ಮ.ೆ aಾeದುi .ಾ2ಬ~ರು ಚ.ಾf5ರ ಅಂತ ಮ.ೆಯ ಅFಾ= ಹಣವನುf ನನf ಅಣx.ೇ (ೊ#ರುYಾE.ೆ. .ಾವWಗಳU ಆ ಮ.ೆಯSದುi ಸುaಾರು 15 ^ನಗಳ ನಂತರ ನನf ಗಂಡ ಊ6ೆ /ೋ5ಬರುYೆEೕ.ೆಂತ /ೇT /ೋದವನು ಸುaಾರು ^ನಗಾದರೂ 0ಾಪ ಬಂ^ರುವW^ಲS. ‚ aಾeದXೆ 6N‡ aಾಡುIEರುವW^ಲS. ಆದi6ಂದ ನನೆ ^ಕುM YೋಚದಂYಾ5 ಸುaಾರು ^ನಗಳU ಅ7ೆSೕ (ಾದು ಆLೕ7ೆ ಅSಂದ 0ಾಪ ಬಂದು ತದುಗದS 0ಾಸ0ಾ5ರುYೆEೕ.ೆ. ಆದi6ಂದ ನನೆ ವರದ Gೆ Hರುಕುಳ Dೕe ಗ7ಾgೆ aಾe /ೊFೆದು ಬeದು ಮ.ೆಂದ /ೊರ/ಾHದ ನನf ಗಂಡ ಶರ' ಮತುE aಾವ ಬಸವXಾಜ ಮತುE ಅYೆE Zವೕ7ಾರವರ 2ರುದˆ (ಾನೂನು ಕಮ ಜರು5ಸ:ೇ(ೆಂತ (ೇT(ೊಳUVYೆEೕ.ೆ. ^.ಾಂಕ:06-06-2023 ತಮR 2‰ಾ=N Sd/- B.T.Lakshmi” The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No. 62 of 2023, which is investigated into and a charge sheet is filed against all the three accused. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No. 17 reads as follows: “17. (ೇNನ ಸಂ ಪE ಾXಾಂಶ - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 3ೋ•ಾXೋಪGೆ ಪ# (ಾಲಂ ನಂಬ 12 ರS ನಮೂ^Nರುವ ಆXೋ…ತನು Zವ@ಗK 2.ೋಬ ನಗರದ 0ಾNOಾ5ದುi ಸದ6ಯವನ pೊYೆಯS ಾ -1 ರವರ ಮದು0ೆ ೊತುE aಾe ^.ಾಂಕ:27-12-2020 ರಂದು ತದುಗ ನಗರದ ZೕXಾಮ ಕ7ಾ4ಣ ಮಂಟಪದS ಮದು0ೆ aಾe(ೊ#ದುi ಮದು0ೆOಾದ ನಂತರ ಎ;1 ರವರು ಾ -1 ರವರನುf Zವ@ಗK(ೆM ಕXೆದು(ೊಂಡು /ೋ5 ಎ;2 ಮತುE ಎ,3 ರವXೊಂ^ೆ ಸಂಾರ aಾಡುIEರು0ಾಗ ಎ,1 6ಂದ ಎ,3 ರವರುಗಳU ಸಣx ಪWಟ 2kಾರಗTೆ ಪ3ೇ ಪ3ೇ ಜಗಳ aಾe Dನf ತಂ3ೆ YಾಗಳU ಮದು0ೆ (ಾಲದS ಕeL ವರದ Gೆ ಹಣ ಬಂಾರ (ೊ#ರುYಾEXೆ ಇನುf /ೆ}ನ ವರದ ಣ ಮತುE ಬಂಾರ Yೆೆದು(ೊಂಡು :ಾ ಎಂದು aಾನNಕ /ಾಗು 3ೈಕ ಂೆ DೕಡುIEದುi 2021 Lೕ IಂಗTನS ಕXೋ.ಾ pಾNEOಾ5ದi6ಂದ ಎ; 1 6ಂದ ಎ3 ರವರು ಾ ಯನುf :ೆಂಗಳ<6Dಂದ Zವ@ಗK(ೆM ಕXೆದು(ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು Zವ@ಗKದSರು0ಾಗ ಎ 1, ಎ:2 ರವ6ೆ ಕXೋನ ಬಂದು ಆಸzYೆೆ 3ಾಖ7ಾ5ದುi ಸದ6 ಆಸzYೆ ಖನುf ಕ# ಅಂತ ಾ -1 ರವ6ೆ ಭಲವಂತ aಾeದi6ಂದ ಾ -1 ರವರು ^.ಾಂಕ;09-05-2021 ರಂದು ತನf ಅಣxನ •ಾYೆಂದ ಾ -1 ರವರ •ಾYೆ ನಂಬ 50100224602011 ೆ ಹಣ /ಾHN(ೊಂಡು Zವ@ಗK, aಾ4B ಆಸzYೆ •ಾYೆೆ 44,770 ರೂಾಗಳನುf ವಾವGೆ aಾeರುYಾEXೆ. ನಂತರ ಅ3ೇ ^ನ 20,000 ಮತುE 10 .ೇ Yಾ6ೕŽನಂದು 30,000 ಒಟು ನನf ಗಂಡನ •ಾYೆೆ 50,000 ರೂಾಗಳನುf ವಾವGೆ aಾeರುYಾEXೆ. ಅSಗೂ ಎ 1 ರವರು ಸುಮR.ಾಗ3ೇ ಪ3ೇ ಪ3ೇ ಂೆ DೕಡುIEದುiದ6ಂದ ಜೂ @ದಲ 0ಾರ, ನ0ೆಂಬ IಂಗTನS /ಾಗೂ 2022 ಏ…• ನS ಒಟು ಮೂರು ಹಂತದS ಾ -1 ರವ6ೆ ತನf ತಂ3ೆ Yಾ (ೊ#\ದ ಬಂಾರದ 7ಾಂv kೈನು, ಬಂಾರದ .ೆPÉè, 4 ಬಂಾರದ ಬೆಗಳU, ಉಂಗುರಗಳU ಎ7ಾS, ೇ6 ಸುaಾರು 30 Yೊಲ ಬಂಾರದ ಒಡ0ೆಗಳನುf (ೊ#ರುYಾEXೆ. /ಾಗೂ ಆಗ 10 .ೇ 2021 ರS, ನನf ಅಣx, ಪ^ೕy ಕುaಾ Zವ@ಗK(ೆM ಬಂದು ನನf ಗಂಡDೆ 5 ಲb ರೂಾ (ೊeNರುYಾEXೆ. ಆದರೂ ಎ: 1 ರವರು ಾ -1 ರವ6ೆ ನನೆ (ೇವಲ 30,000 ರೂಾ ಸಂಬಂಳ ಬರುತE3ೆ. hೕವನ aಾಡಲು YೊಂದXೆ ಆಗುIE3ೆ Dನೆ "# ಊಟ /ಾಕ:ೇ(ೆಂದು ಅ0ಾಚ4 ಶಬiಗTಂದ :ೈದು aಾನNಕ /ಾಗೂ 3ೈಕ ಂೆ Dೕe ಾಣ :ೆದ6(ೆ /ಾHದi6ಂದ ಾ 2 ರವರು ತನf ಸಂಬಂ^ಕXೊಂ^ೆ :ೆಂಗಳ<6ೆ /ೋ5 2kಾರ aಾeದi(ೆM ಅವರ Lೕ7ೆಯೂ ಸಹ ಜಗಳ aಾe ಾ -1 ರವರನುf ಮ.ೆಂದ /ೊರೆ /ಾHರುYಾEXೆಂದು ತD•ೆಂದ ದೃಢ ಪಟ LೕXೆೆ LೕಲMಂಡ ಎ; 1 6ಂದ ಎ 3 ರವರುಗಳ 2ರುದˆ ಕಲಂ 323, 504, 506, 498(ಎ), Xೆ;ಏ 34 ಐ…N /ಾಗು 3 & 4 e… ಆB 6ೕYಾ4 ಈ 3ೋ•ಾXೋಪGೆ ಪ# ಸSN3ೆ.” A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 in juxtaposition with the complaint would indicate that the allegations against the petitioners cannot be - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 taken as ingredients for permitting further proceedings to continue. The offence is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, inter alia. 9. Jurisprudence is replete with the judgments of the Apex Court on the issue, as to whether proceedings under 498A of the IPC should be permitted to be continued or terminated in the fact situation. If the summary of the charge sheet and the complaint are noticed, further proceedings cannot be permitted to be continued against these petitioners, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR1 wherein it is held as follows: “Issue involved 10. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the appellants and respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the appellant in-laws are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed? 11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498-AIPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her 1(2022 SCC Online SC 162) - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as Section 498-A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. [Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472: (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 301] , has observed : (SCC pp. 478-79, para 14) “14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act 46 of 1983. The expression “cruelty” in Section 498-A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. [Explanation to Section 498-A.] It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualised. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.” - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273: (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4) “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36) “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498- AIPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741: (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21) “21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para 12) ‘12. … There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.’ The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.” - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6) “6. … The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in- laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that “all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy”. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution. 19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR Respondent 1 i.e. the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the learned Principal Judge, Purnea, to not harass the respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 1-4-2019, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11-12-2017. 20. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the appellant in-laws would simply result in an abuse of the process of law. 21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. Subsequently, 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 22025 SCC OnLine SC 2913 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 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 - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 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. 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 - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 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 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) - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 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) In the light of the law as elucidated by the Apex Court, if the proceedings are permitted to be continued against these petitioners, it 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) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.971 of 2023 pending before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga stands quashed qua the petitioners. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP / List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0