SMT PREMA K.B @ PREMA KUMARI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61229
CRL.P No. 1918 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010112552024




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1918 OF 2024


BETWEEN:

1.
SMT. PREMA K.B. @ PREMA KUMARI,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
W/O. ANANAD B H
SAPTHAGIRI, 2ND CROSS,
SHIVAJI NAGAR,
NEAR CHOWDESWARI TEMPLE
NELAMANGALA,
NELAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 562 123.

2.
SMT. ANNAPURNA DEVI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O SUNIL KUMAR A.N.
R/AT NO.452, 2ND BLOCK,
7TH CROSS, RT NAGAR,
VTC: BANGALORE NORTH,
PO: R.T.NAGAR
SUB DISTRICT: BANGALORE NORTH,
DISTRICT: BANGALORE,
STATE: KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560032.
…PETITIONERS











Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. NATARAJ D., ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61229
CRL.P No. 1918 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010112552024



AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE STATION
BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.

2.
SMT. DAMINI H.C.
D/O SHRI. CHIKKA HANUMEGOWDA,
W/O MANJUNATH K.B.,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NO.20, 1ST MAIN,
3RD CROSS, BYRAVESHWARA NAGAR,
LAGGERE, NEAR BILVA PATGRE TREE,
BANGALORE NORTH,
PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES,
BANGALORE-560058.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHESHA P., HCGP FOR R-1;
SMT.P.ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR, COMPLAINT AND CHARGE SHEET AND ANY
CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS THEREIN ARISING OUT OF
FIR IN QUESTION, CR.NO.24/2023 (C.C.NO.10418/2023)
REGISTERED AT NANDHINI LAYOUT POLICE STATION, FOR THE
OFFENCE 498A, 323 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND
4 OF D.P. ACT, ON THE FILE OF HONBLE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY
ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61229
CRL.P No. 1918 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010112552024



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash
the proceedings in C.C.No.10418/2023 arising out of Crime
No.24/2023 dated 03.02.2023 filed by the Nandini Layout
Police Station, Bengaluru City, against the petitioners and other
accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323,
506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 currently pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged the complaint before respondent No.1-Police on
03.02.2023, alleging that her marriage was solemnized with
accused no.1 - Manjunath K.B. on 03.02.2020. At the time of
marriage, the accused persons demanded dowry in cash and
kind, which was duly fulfilled by the parents of respondent
No.2. After the marriage, respondent No.2 started residing in
the matrimonial home along with accused No.1 and his parents.
Initially, the marital relationship was cordial for about 20 days.
Thereafter, accused No.1, his parents and these petitioners,

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61229
CRL.P No. 1918 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010112552024



who are the sisters-in-law of respondent No.2, allegedly started
subjecting her to physical and mental harassment by
demanding additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. Unable to
endure the alleged harassment, respondent No.2 left the
matrimonial home and started residing at her parental house. It
is further alleged that the accused persons did not make any
efforts to take her back to the matrimonial home.
Subsequently, on 26.07.2022, at about 07:30 a.m., these
petitioners allegedly visited the parental house of respondent
No.2, picked up a quarrel with her and her parents and also
assaulted them. Hence, she lodged the complaint. Based on the
said complaint, respondent No.1-Police registered a case in
Crime No.24/2023 against the husband, in-laws and these
petitioners, arraying the petitioners as accused Nos.4 and 5.
Subsequently, after investigation, respondent No.1-Police filed
the charge sheet against all the accused persons, including
these petitioners. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners are before this Court.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61229
CRL.P No. 1918 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010112552024



3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners, being the sisters-in-law of respondent No.2, are no
way connected with the alleged matrimonial dispute between
accused Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.2. It is further
submitted that the petitioners are residing separately from the
matrimonial home of respondent No.2 and accused Nos.1 to 3.
Both the petitioners are married and are residing with their
respective matrimonial families. Under such circumstances, the
allegations made against the petitioners are bald and omnibus
in nature, without any specific overt acts being attributed to
them. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the
petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
4. The said prayer is opposed by learned counsel for
respondent No.2 and the learned HCGP. They jointly contend
that the charge sheet has already been filed against the
petitioners and that the statements of the material witnesses
disclose the involvement of these petitioners in the alleged
harassment of respondent No.2 for additional dowry. They
further submit that the charge sheet averments specifically

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61229
CRL.P No. 1918 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010112552024



disclose that these petitioners instigated accused Nos.1 to 3 to
subject respondent No.2 to harassment. Under such
circumstances, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot

be quashed. Accordingly, they seek to dismiss the petition.
5. I have given my anxious consideration both on the
submission and perused the charge sheet materials.
6. As could be gathered from the records, the relationship
between the petitioners and respondent No.2 is not in dispute.
The petitioners are the sisters-in-law of respondent No.2. It is
the admitted case of respondent No.2 that the petitioners are
residing separately with their respective families. On perusal of
the complaint averments, specific allegations are forthcoming
against accused Nos.1 to 3 with regard to the demand for
dowry at the time of marriage and subsequently for additional
dowry. However, except for certain bald and omnibus
allegations, no specific instances indicating the date, time,
place or manner in which these petitioners allegedly subjected
respondent No.2 to harassment are forthcoming from the
charge sheet materials. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble
Apex Court, in the case of K. Subba Rao v. State of

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61229
CRL.P No. 1918 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010112552024



Telangana, represented by its Secretary, Department of
Home and Others, reported in 2024 INSC 960 , and Dara
Lakshmi Narayan v. State of Telangana, reported in

(2025) 3 SCC 735 , held, in paragraph Nos.25 and 28, as

under:
“ 25 . A mere reference to the names of family
members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial
dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active
involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-
recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that
there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of
the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of
a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping
accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularized allegations cannot form the basis for
criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such
cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal
process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent
family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to
6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1
have been living in different cities and have not resided in
the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent
No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal
prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the
process of the law in the absence of specific allegations
made against each of them.

28 . The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way
of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted
on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring
swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years,
as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes
across the country, accompanied by growing discord and

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61229
CRL.P No. 1918 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010112552024



tension within the institution of marriage, consequently,
there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions
like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing
personal vendetta against the husband and his family by
a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during
matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the
misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use
of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family.
Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of
the IPC against the husband and his family in order to
seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a
wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again,
cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family
in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.”

7. The aforesaid judgment clearly lays down the principle
that, in matrimonial disputes, all the relatives of the husband
cannot be prosecuted in the absence of specific and distinct
allegations against them. In the present case, the allegations
made against these petitioners are omnibus in nature, and no
prima facie case are made out against them. Even if the
allegations contained in the charge sheet are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety, no offence is made out
against these petitioners. Hence, I am of the considered
opinion that continuation of the proceedings against these
petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of Court.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61229
CRL.P No. 1918 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010112552024



ORDER

i. The criminal petition is allowed .
ii. The proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 in
C.C.No.10418/2023 arising out of Crime
No.24/2023 dated 03.02.2023 filed by the
Nandini Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City,
for the offences punishable under Section
498A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 currently
pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed.


SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE











GPG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9