Smt. B.J.Shakunthala v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2026CRL.P/13776/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing petition; 498A IPC omnibus/general allegations against in-laws; mother-in-law father-in-law brother-in-law distant relative; Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162 relied on; Rajesh Sharma; Arnesh Kumar; Preeti Gupta; Geeta Mehrotra; G.V. Rao; K. Subba Rao; dowry demand; Dowry Prohibition Act Section 4; Crime No.82/2023 Women P.S. Hassan; investigation quashed qua accused Nos.2 to 5; misuse of 498A; matrimonial dispute; Karnataka High Court; M. Nagaprasanna J.

What did the court decide?

Investigation in Crime No.82/2023 pending before the 7th Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Hassan District quashed qua accused Nos.2 to 5; the husband (accused No.1) not before the Court. ¶142

Smt. B.J.Shakunthala Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Investigation in Crime No.82/2023 pending before the 7th Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Hassan District quashed qua accused Nos.2 to 5; the husband (accused No.1) not before the Court.

¶142

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who are the mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and a distant relative of the complainant, must be permitted to be prosecuted for the offences in Crime No.82/2023.

¶52

Court's answer

A perusal of the complaint indicates that the offences and overt acts were committed by the husband-accused No.1, who is not before the Court, with only a sprinkling of allegations against the petitioners, particularly the mother-in-law and father-in-law, and nothing against the other two petitioners.

¶83

Ratio / Principle

The allegations against the petitioners are by themselves vague; if further investigation is permitted to be continued on such vague allegations, it would run foul of the plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court on the issue.

¶83

Key takeaways

In light of Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, permitting further investigation even on such vague allegations, which have a bleak foundation, would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.ratio¶133
The criminal petition is allowed and the investigation in Crime No.82/2023 pending before the 7th Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Hassan District stands quashed qua accused Nos.2 to 5.ratio¶142

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 13776 of 2023, decided on 16 June 2026 by M. Nagaprasanna J., High Court of Karnataka: Accused Nos. 2 to 5 - described as the mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and a distant relative of the complainant - filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR dated 04.08.2023 in Crime No.82/2023 of the Women P.S., Hassan, registered for offences under Sections 498A, 506, 323, 307, 504, 363 R/W 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (described in the body of the order as Sections 498A, 506, 323, 307, 504, 383, 34 IPC), pending before the 7th Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan District. The Court found on perusal of the complaint that the offences and overt acts were attributable principally to the husband (accused No.1, not before the Court), with only vague allegations against the in-law petitioners and none against two of them. Relying on Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162, it held that permitting further investigation on such vague allegations would be an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. Petition allowed; investigation quashed qua accused Nos.2 to 5.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29445 CRL.P No. 13776 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13776 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. B. J. SHAKUNTHALA, W/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶10

RAMEGOWDA, S/O LATE APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH ARE

¶12

R/O VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 4^TH CROSS, M.G.ROAD, TUMKURU TOWN, TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶13

Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT. R.BHARATHI W/O S. RAVICHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NO.256, BALAJI NAGAR, SIRA TOWN, SIRA, TUMAKURU - 572 137.

¶15

SMT. NAGAMANI B.H., W/O D. VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O SREE MARUTHI NILAYA,

¶16

6^TH MAIN ROAD,

¶17

2^ND CROSS BEHIND SGR SCHOOL,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:29445 CRL.P No. 13776 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SADASHIVANAGARA, TUMAKURU - 572 103.

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SMT. APOORVA N., ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HASSAN,

¶26

BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶27

MEGHANA R., W/O UPENDRA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O G R AYANGARA ROAD, UDAYAGIRI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SMT.LAKSHMI PATEL T.L., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶30

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 04.08.2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 506, 323, 307, 504, 363 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.4 OF D.P ACT IN CR.NO.82/2023 BY THE WOMEN P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 7TH ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:29445 CRL.P No. 13776 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

The subject petition is preferred by accused nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. All relatives of the accused no. 1, the wife of whom is the complainant.

¶38

Heard Smt. Apoorva N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Lakshmi Patel T.L., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶39

The second respondent-complainant and the accused No. 1 married in the year 2020. It transpires that after about 2 years of marriage, the relationship between the accused No. 1 and the complainant turns sour and the relationship eventually flounders. On floundering of the relationship, several proceedings are instituted by the respondent against the petitioners or the petitioners against the respondent, as the case would be.

¶40

The present petition concerns registration of a crime in Crime No.82/2023 registered for offence punishable

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29445 CRL.P No. 13776 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

under Section 498A, 506, 323, 307, 504, 383, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶44

The registration of the crime has driven these petitioners to this court in the subject petition. The husband is not before the court, only the mother-in-law, father-in-law and other in-laws are before the court.

¶45

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that there are no allegations or direct overt acts alleged against these petitioners. All the allegations are against accused No. 1 who may have indulged in offence under Section 307 of IPC. Therefore, the learned counsel submits further investigation in the case at hand must not be permitted to be continued against these petitioners.

¶46

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant would vehemently refute the submission in contending that the matter is still at the stage of investigation. The complaint clearly makes out certain offences. If that be so, the investigation must be permitted to be continued and should not be interdicted itself by jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:29445 CRL.P No. 13776 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

I have given my anxious consideration for the

¶51

submission made by the learned counsels to the afore narrated facts.

¶52

The issue is whether these petitioners who are mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and a distant relative of the complainant must be permitted to be prosecuted for the aforementioned offences in Crime No.82/2023. The entire issue has straggled from the registration of the complaint, I therefore, deem it appropriate to extract hereunder the complaint for the purpose of quick reference.

"�ೆ,

ಆರ�ಕ ಉಪ��ೕ�ಕರು

ಮ��ಾ ��ೕ� �ಾ�ೆ �ಾಸನ.

ಇಂದ,

�ೕಘನ .ಆ!

ಉದಯ#�, $.ಆ! ಅಯ&ಂ�ಾ! ರ'ೆ( �ಾಸನ.

¶59

)ಾನ&*ೇ,

¶60

+ಷಯ:- ನನ- ಗಂಡ ನನ- ಅ0ೆ( ಮತು( )ಾವ 3ೈ�ಕ ಮತು( )ಾನ5ಕ 6ರುಕುಳ �ೕಡುತ(ರುವ ಬ�ೆ9

¶61

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:29445 CRL.P No. 13776 of 2023

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

�ೕಲ;ಂಡ +ಷಯ<ೆ; ಸಂಬಂ=5ದಂ0ೆ ೨೦೨೦ ನ@ೆಂಬನA�B ತುಮಕೂರು ಎಂ $ ರ'ೆ(ಯ�B @ಾ5ಸುತ(ರುವ EFೕ ಾ�ೕ�ೌಡ ಮತು( EFೕಮH ಶಕುಂತಳ ಅವರ ಮಗ ಉJೇಂದF ಮತು( Kಾನು ಪರಸLರ ಒNL ತುಮಕೂರು KೋಂದO ಕPೇ�ಯ�B ಮದು@ೆQಾ#ದುR, ಆನಂತರ ಒಂದು ವಷAಗಳ <ಾಲ ಅವರ ತುಮಕೂ�ನ ಮKೆಯ�B @ಾಸ@ಾ#ದುR ೨೦೨೧ ನ@ೆಂಬ! ನ�B ನಮ�ೆ ಒಂದು �ೆಣುU ಮಗು ಜ�5ತು. ಈ ಆಮಗು+�ೆ ೧ವಷA ೮ HಂಗಳY ಆ#ರುತ(3ೆ . ಮದು@ೆQಾದ <ೆಲವZ =ನ<ೆ; 6ರುಕುಳ <ೊಡಲು ಶರು)ಾ[ದಳY ಅ�B ಕೂರ \ೇಡ ಎಂದು ಊಟವನು- ಅವರು ಮೂರು ಜನ )ಾತF ಊಟವನು)ಾ[<ೊಳY_H(ದRರು. `ಕ; ತಂಗಳನು- Hನು- ಎಂದು ಒ0ಾ(aಸುH(ದRರು ದರೂ ಪFE-5ದೆ �ಾ6ದುR Hಂದು b=Rರೂ ಎಂದು �ೆದ�ಸುH(ದRರು ಆನಂತರ ಅಂದೆ ಮಗು ಜ�5ದ ನಂತರ �ೆಣುU ಮಗೂ ಎಂದು ಇವರ 6ರುಕುc ಇನೂ- �ೆdeತು. ಆನಂತರ ನನ- ಅಮg��ೆ )ಾ[ ಕೆದು<ೊಂಡು �ೋಗುವಂ0ೆ �ೇc3ೆ . ಆಗ ನನ- ಅ0ೆ( )ಾವ ಇಬhರು ಕೆದು<ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು �ಾಸನದ ನನ- 0ಾaಯ ಮKೆ�ೆ bಟiರು. ತುಮಕೂ�ನ�B ಒಂ3ೆರಡು HಂಗಳY ಅjೆBೕ ಇ3ಾRಗ \ಾಣಂHಯ ಊಟ KಾKೇ ತQಾರು )ಾ[<ೊಳ_\ೇ<ಾ#ತು( QಾವZ3ೇ 'ಾ)ಾನುಗಳನುಅಡು�ೆ ತQಾ��ೆ <ೊಡುH(ರ�ಲB. ಪFE-5ದೆ ನನ- )ಾವ ಅ0ೆ( ನನ- ಗಂಡ �ಾಗೂ ಆ�ಾಗ ಬರುH(ದR ನನ-0ೆ(ಯ 'ೆ-ೕ�vÉ 3ೈ�ಕ@ಾ# ಹjೆB )ಾಡುH(ದRರು. ಮತು( )ಾನ5ಕ@ಾ# 6ರುಕುಳ �ೕ[ ನನ- ಮಗ��ೆ ಇKೊ-ಂದು ಮದು@ೆ )ಾಡು0ೆ(ೕKೆ ಎಂದು �ೆದ�ಸುH(ದRರು Kಾನು lೌmಾಲಯ<ೆ;, �ೋದ ಸಂದಭAದ�B ಮಗು+ನ �ೕjೆ ಒಂದು 3ೊಡo=ಂಬು �ಾ6 <ೊಲBಲು ಪFಯH-5ದರು ಅದನು- Kಾನು ಕಂಡು ಪFE-53ಾಗ ನನ- �ೕjೆ ಆಗಲೂ 3ೌಜAನ& ಎಸ#ದರು ನನ- ಗಂಡನ pೊ0ೆ )ಾತKಾಡುವZದಕೂ; bಡುH(ರ�ಲB. ಮಗು+ನ ಶು±ÀÆæ'ೆ )ಾಡjಾಗ3ೆ ಎರqೇ Hಂಗc�ೆ �ಾಸನದ ನನ- 0ಾaಯ ಮKೆ�ೆ ಬರು@ಾಗ ನನ- ಗಂಡ ತುಂ\ಾ ಾ3ಾrಂತ )ಾ[ದರೂ ಒಡªÉ <ೊಡ¯ÉÃ ಇಲB, ಈಗ ಒಂದು ವಷAದ ಎಂಟುHಂಗಳ ಅವsಯ�B ನನ- ಅ0ೆ( )ಾವ ಮತು( ಗಂಡ <ಾtಾmಾರ<ೆ;, ಒಂ3ೆರಡು \ಾ� ಬಂ=ರು0ಾ(ೆ ನನ- ಮತು( ಮಗು+ನ ಸಂಪuಣA ಖಚುA ಇ0ಾ&=ಗಲನು- ನನ- 0ಾaxೕ ಭ�ಸುH(3ಾRೆ ನನ- ಮತು( ಮಗು+ನ ಆಸL0ೆF ಖdA�ೆ ಹಣ <ೇcದೆ �ಂ=ಸು0ಾ(*ೆ .

¶65

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:29445 CRL.P No. 13776 of 2023

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

ನನ- ತಂ3ೆ ೨೦೨೨ ಜೂyನ�B ನನ- ಮಗನ ಬು&5Kೆ� �ೆ <ೊಡುವಂ0ೆ ನನಅvÉÛ )ಾªÀ ಮತು( ಗಂಡ N[ಸುH(ದRರು ಇ�B�ೆ ಒಂದು Hಂಗಳ �ಂ3ೆ ಅಂದೆ ಜೂy Hಂಗಳ�B ನಮg 0ಾaಯು ಅ0ೆF�ೆ ಕೆದು<ೊಂಡು �ೋ# ಎಂದೆ ನಮg ಅ0ೆ( ನನಗೂ ನನ- ಮಗ�ಗೂ ಮಗುವನು- 'ಾಕಲು ಆಗುವZ=ಲB, 'ಾa ಎಂದು ಅಸಹ�ೕಯ@ಾ# )ಾತKಾ[ದರು ಈ ನಡು@ೆ ನನ- ಗಂಡನ ಊ�ನ ��ಯ��ೆ zೕy )ಾ[ ಬ�ೆ9 Hc5ದ ಅವರು ಸಹ ಕೆದು<ೊಂಡು �ೋ# ಎಂದು ಸಲ�ೆ �ೕ[ದರು �ೕjೊ-ೕಟ<ೆ;, ನನ- ಗಂಡ ಒNL<ೊಂಡು �ೋಗು0ೆ(ೕKೆ ಎಂದು ತಕ*ಾರು 0ೆ�ೆ3ೆ .

¶69

ಈ�ಾಗjೇ Kಾನು ಜುjೈ ೧೪-೨೦೨೩ ರಂದು �ಮg �ಾ�ೆಯ�B ದೂರು 3ಾಖ�5ರುವ ಪF<ಾರ ನನ- ಗಂಡ ೧3-೦೭-೨೩ ರಂದು ನನ- ಅಮgನ ಮKೆಯ ಹH(ರ ಬಂದು ಗjಾtೆ )ಾ[ ಆ²èÃಲ ಪದಗಳ �ಂ=5 ೩ ಜನ *ೌ[ಗಳನು'ೇ�5<ೊಂಡು 3ೈ�ಕ@ಾ# ಹjೆB)ಾ[ ಬಲವಂತ@ಾ# <ಾ�ನ�B ಕೂ�5<ೊಳ_ಲು ಪFಯH-5ದ <ಾ�ನ�B mಾಕುಚೂ�ಗಳನು- ಅಡ#5 ಇ~iದR <ಾ��ೆ ನನ-ನು- ಬಲವಂತ@ಾ# ದbh

¶70

ಪFಯತ-5ದ ಆಗ ನನ- 0ಾa ಬಂದು b[5<ೊಂಡರು ನನ- 0ಾaಯನುKೋ[ದ ನನ- ಗಂಡ ಅವನ ಸಹಚರರ ಜೂ0ೆ ಪಾ�Qಾದ ಈ ಸಮಯದ�B ನನ�ೆ �ಾಗೂ ನನ- ಮಗು+�ೆ 3ೈ�ಕ@ಾ# �ಾಯ )ಾ[ದ ಕ�ೆದ •ೆಬFವ�aಂದಲು zೕy )ಾ[ಲB zೕy )ಾ[ದೆ zೕy ಕೆ 5€ೕಕ�ಸುವZ=ಲB. zೕKೆ ಎH(ದ Kಾನು \ೆಳ�ಾಂ 3ಾಾವಡ \ಾಂ\ೆಯ�B ಇ3ೆRKೆ ಎಂದು Hರಸ;ರದ ಉvÀÛರ �ೕಡು0ಾ(Kೆ ಆ ನಂತರ ನನ- ಅ0ೆ( )ಾವ ಮತು( ನನ-0ೆ( 'ೆ-ೕ�vÉ Eಾದ •ಾರH ಇವರು KಾವZ �ೇcದ �ಾ�ೆ <ೇಳ3ೆ ಇದRೆ �ನ-ನೂ 'ಾaಸು0ೆ(ೕ@ೆ ಎಂದು ದಮ6 �ಾಕು0ಾ(ೆ . ನನ- ಗಂಡ ಈ ಮೂದjೇ ಒಂದು ಮದು@ೆ ಆ#ರು0ಾ(Kೆ ಈ +ಷಯವನು- ನನ�ೆ Hcಸ3ೆ ‚ೕಸ )ಾ[ ನನ-ನು- ಮದು@ೆQಾ#ರು0ಾ(Kೆ ಮದು@ೆQಾದ ಎರಡು Hಂಗಳ ನಂತರ ಅವರ ಸಂಬಂ=ಗಳ ಮುƒಾಂತರ ಈ +ಷಯ Hcaತು ೧೪-೦೭೨೦೨೩ ರ�B �ಾ�ೆ�ೆ ದೂರು �ೕ[ದ �ೕjೆ �ೕವZ ಕೆa5 Hc�ೇcದ ನಂತರ

¶71

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:29445 CRL.P No. 13776 of 2023

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

ಅವನು ಅಂದೆ ನನ- ಗಂಡ zೕy ಕೆ)ಾಡjೆ ಇ�B �@ಾAಹ�ಾ @ೆಚe ೫೨.೦೦೦

¶75

<ೊಡ\ೇ<ೆಂದು Hc5=Rೕ� <ಾಟmಾರ<ೆ; ೮೦೦೦ ರೂ �ಾ6ದ �ಾ�ೆಯjೆB Hೕ)ಾAನ@ಾದ ಪF<ಾರ ('ೇ@ೆ �ೇcದಂ0ೆ ಜುjೈ ೨ ರಂದು ಮKೆ)ಾ[ಕ*ೆದು<ೊಂಡು �ೋಗ \ೇ<ೆಂದು �ೇc=Rೕ�. �ಾ�ೆಯ�B ಒNL<ೊಂಡು ಮುಚec<ೆ�ೆ ಸ� )ಾ[ �ೋ# ಈಗ Kಾನು ಒNL<ೊಂ[®è ಎಂದು ಉ…ಾ•ೆಉತ(ರ �ೇಳY0ಾ(Kೆ .

¶76

೧೪-೦೭-೨೦೨೩ ರಂದು Kಾನು ದೂರು �ೕ[ �ೕವZ ೧೫-೦೭-೨೦೨೩ ರಂದು ನಮgನು- ಕ*ೆa5 Hc �ೇc ಕಳY�5ದ ನಂತರ ೧೪-೦೭-೨೦೨೩ ರ ಒಕ;�ೆ†ಂ=�ೆ ನನ�ೆ Kೋಟ� �ೕ[ರು0ಾ(ೆ , ಅದು ನಮ�ೆ೧೭-೦೭೨೦೨೩ ರಂದು ತಲುN5ರುತ(3ೆ ಈKಾವZ ದೂರು �ೕ[ದ �ೕjೆ Kಾನು ಕೆದು<ೊಂಡು �ೋಗು0ೆ(Kೆ ಎನು-ವ �ೕHಯ�B Kೋೕ� ಕಳY�5ರು0ಾ(3ೆ ಇದರ�B �ೊತ(ಗುತ(3ೆ KಾವZ �ಾ�ೆಯ ದೂರು �ೕ[ದ ನಂತರ Kೋ� ಕc�ಸುವZದ�ಂದ ಈತ ಎಷುi ನಯವಂಚಕ ಎಂದು Hcಯುತ(3ೆ ಈ Kೋ~� KಾವZ ವ6ೕಲರ ಮುƒಾಂತರ ಪFH ಉತ(ರ �ೕ[ರುತ(@ೆ ಈ ಬ�ೆ9 KಾವZ 3ಾƒಾjಾHಗಳY ಲಗH(3ೆRೕKೆ .

¶77

ಆಗ�i ೨ ರಂದು ನನ- ಗಂಡನು- ಆತನ dಕ;ಮg KಾಗಮO ಎಂಬುವರು ಮೂಲಕ ಕೆ )ಾ[5 ದೂರು @ಾಪ� 0ೆ�ೆದು <ೊಳ_3ೇ �ೋದೆ ನನ�ೆ 'ಾ@ೇಗH ಎಂದು �ೆದ�ಸು0ಾ(*ೆ ಈತನು ನಯವಂಚಕ Kಾ#ದುR QಾವZ3ೆ HಳYವc<ೆ ಬಗು9ವಂ0ೆ <ಾಣುವZ=ಲB Kಾನು ಪFಸು(ತ ನನ- ಮಗು+ನ �ಾಗೂ ನನಖಚುA@ೆಚeಗಳನು- ಭ�ಸjಾಗ3ೇ ಕಂ�ಾjಾ#3ೆRೕKೆ ಆದ�ಂದ ದಯ)ಾ[ <ಾನೂ�ನ ಕFಮ ಜರು#5 Kಾ&ಯ ಒದ#5 <ೊಡ\ೇ<ೆಂದು �ಮg� ಕಳಕcaಂದ ಪF‡Aಸು0ೆ(ೕKೆ .

¶78

�ಮg ಅವ�ಾಹKೆ�ಾ# Kಾನು ‚ದಲು ದೂರು �ೕ[ದ pೆಾˆ‰ ಪFH 5€ೕಕೃH ಪFH ವ6ೕಲರರು �ೕ[ದ Kೋ~� �ಾಗೂ KಾವZ �ೕ[ದ ಉತ(ರದ ಪFH ಎಲBವನು- ಲಗH(53ೆRೕKೆ (pೆಾˆ‰ ಪFHಗಳY)"

¶79

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:29445 CRL.P No. 13776 of 2023

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

A perusal at the complaint would indicate all the

¶83

offences/overt acts committed by the husband-accused No.1 who is not before the Court and only a sprinkling few against these petitioners particularly against the mother-in-law and father-in-law while nothing against other two petitioners . If on the strength of the aforesaid allegations which are by themselves vague if further investigation is permitted to be continued, it would run foul of plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court on the issue particularly in the case of

¶84

Kahkashan Kausar -Vs- State of Bihar , reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162, wherein it has held as follows

¶85

“Issue Involved

¶86

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 in-laws Appellants are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed?

¶87

11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in

¶88

10 -

¶89

NC: 2026:KHC:29445 CRL.P No. 13776 of 2023

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

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 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.

¶92

12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2018) 10 SCC 472, has observed:-

¶93

“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 the Act46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A 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. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under 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 visualized. 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.”

¶94

13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273), it was also observed:-

¶95

“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

¶96

11 -

¶97

NC: 2026:KHC:29445 CRL.P No. 13776 of 2023

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

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 nonbailable 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 a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grandfathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.”

¶100

14. Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667, it has also been observed:-

¶101

“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498AIPC 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 are also a matter of serious concern.

¶102

33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498Aas 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 fiber, peace and tranquility

¶103

12 -

¶104

NC: 2026:KHC:29445 CRL.P No. 13776 of 2023

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

¶107

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

¶108

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 husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of 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 scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

¶109

36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.”

¶110

13 -

¶111

NC: 2026:KHC:29445 CRL.P No. 13776 of 2023

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

15. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 741, it was observed:-

¶114

“21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Raovs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 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:

¶115

“there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, 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 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 reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the 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.”

¶116

16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452, it was also observed that:-

¶117

“6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial dispute sand dowry deaths. The

¶118

14 -

¶119

NC: 2026:KHC:29445 CRL.P No. 13776 of 2023

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

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.”

¶122

17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section498A IPC 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.

¶123

18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.

¶124

19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as

¶125

15 -

¶126

NC: 2026:KHC:29445 CRL.P No. 13776 of 2023

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

dowry made in a previous FIR. Respondent No. 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 Ld. 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 01.04.19, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17.

¶129

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 in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.

¶130

21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.”

¶131

(Emphasis supplied)

¶132

In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the Apex

¶133

Court permitting further investigation even on such vague allegations which have a bleak foundation would become an

¶134

16 -

¶135

NC: 2026:KHC:29445 CRL.P No. 13776 of 2023

¶136

HC-KAR

¶137

abuse of the process of law and result in mis-carriage of

¶138

justice.

¶139

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶140

ORDER

¶141

(i) The criminal petition is allowed .

¶142

(ii) The investigation in Crime No.82/2023 pending before the 7^th Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Hassan District, qua the accused Nos.2 to 5 stand quashed.

¶143

Sd/-

¶144

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶145

HR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0

Smt. B.J.Shakunthala v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. B.J.Shakunthala v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Vijayendra Babu, Vs C. Hemanth Kumar

Dasegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Fayaz Vs the State of Karnataka

Abdul Anuf Vs the State of Karnataka

B S Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Rajesh D Vs State of Karnataka