SRI. MUNISHEKAR T.S. vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60044
CRL.P No. 2914 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4920 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010161102024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2914 OF 2024

C/W

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4920 OF 2024


IN CRL.P.NO.2914 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. SUBRAMANYAM. T
S/O T NADHAMUNI,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 501,
PADMAVATHI PURAM,
SRI SAI TOWER,
THIRUCHANOOR ROAD,
THIRUPATHI,
ANDRAPRADESH - 517 501.

2. SMT RAJESHWARI T
W/O SUBRAMANYAM T
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 501,
PADMAVATHI PURAM,
SRI SAI TOWER,
THIRUCHANOOR ROAD,
THIRUPATHI,
ANDRAPRADESH - 517501.

3. SRI JYOTHISH KUMAR T.S
S/O SUBRAMANYAM T,







Digitally signed by
PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60044
CRL.P No. 2914 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4920 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010161102024



AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 501,
PADMAVATHI PURAM,
SRI SAI TOWER, THIRUCHANOOR ROAD,
THIRUPATHI, ANDRAPRADESH - 517 501

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT,
HOUSE NO.V2A OF "VAATSALYA",
TH RD
NO.45 & 46, 4 MAIN, 3 BLOCK,
AYYAPPANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 036..

4. SMT SARANYA PRIYA
W/O JOYTHISH KUMAR T S.
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 501,
PADMAVATHI PURAM,
SRI SAI TOWER, THIRUCHANOOR ROAD,
THIRUPATHI, ANDRAPRADESH - 517 501.

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT,
HOUSE NO. V2A OF "VAATSALYA",
TH RD
NO.45 & 46, 4 MAIN, 3 BLOCK,
AYYAPPANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560036.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PARAMESHWARAPPA C.T, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SURYANAGARA POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALURU-560 001

2. SMT RACHITHA.B
D/O A.N BASAVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 240,

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60044
CRL.P No. 2914 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4920 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010161102024



KB RESIDENCY, R.K TOWNSHIP,
YARANDAHALLI, JIGANI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK-560 105
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESHA P, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. K. RAM SING, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.26980/2023
IN CR.NO.384/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 323,
504, 506, 120B, 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT
INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, WHICH IS PENDING ON
THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
ANEKAL.

IN CRL.P.NO.4920 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SRI. MUNISHEKAR T.S
S/O SUBRAMANYAM T
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.501
PADMAVATHI PURAM
SRI SAI TOWER, THIRUVHANOOR ROAD
THIRUPATHI, ANDRAPRADESH-517 501.
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. PARAMESHWARAPPA C.T, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SURYANAGARA POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALURU-560 001

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60044
CRL.P No. 2914 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4920 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010161102024



2. SMT RACHITHA
D/O A.N BASAVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 240,
KB RESIDENCY, R.K TOWNSHIP,
YARANDAHALLI, JIGANI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK-560 105
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESHA P, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. K. RAM SING, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.26980/2023
IN CR.NO.384/2023 FOR COMPOUNDING THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506, 120B, 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND
4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, INITIATED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., ANEKAL.

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

Crl.P.No.4920/2024 is by accused No.1 and
Crl.P.No.2914/2024 is by accused Nos.2 to 5 seeking to quash
the proceedings in C.C.No.26980/2023 arising out of Crime
No.384/2023 pending on the file of learned IV Addl. Civil Judge
& JMFC, Anekal, against accused No.1 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 of IPC read with
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and against accused

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60044
CRL.P No. 2914 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4920 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010161102024



Nos.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506, 120B, 34 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Accused No.1 is the husband, accused No.2 is the
father-in-law, accused No.3 is the mother-in-law and accused
No.4 is the brother-in-law of respondent No.2; and accused
No.5 is the wife of accused No.4.

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2
lodged a complaint against the petitioners alleging that her
marriage was solemnized with accused no.1 and after the
marriage, accused No.1 resided with respondent No.2 at her
parental home along with her mother and her daughter from
the first marriage. After 10 days from the date of marriage,
accused No.1 started to harass respondent No.2 for silly
reasons and also demanded additional dowry and gold
ornaments. Thereafter, on 19.08.2022 when respondent No.2
went to UK on her duty, accused No.1 also joined her, for which
respondent No.2 spent nearly 40 to 45 lakh and later when
they came back from UK, accused No.1 started to harass

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60044
CRL.P No. 2914 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4920 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010161102024



respondent No.2, her mother and her daughter and the other
accused asked respondent No.2 to leave her mother and
daughter and further asked her to reside separately with
accused No.1. Thereafter, accused No.1 filed a matrimonial
case seeking divorce at Tirupathi Court. Since respondent No.2
opposed the same, accused persons harassed respondent No.2,
her mother and her daughter both physically and mentally and
abused them in filthy language and threatened them with dire
consequences. Hence, left with no other option, she lodged a
complaint before the 1st respondent - police. The police after
investigation laid charge sheet against the accused persons.
The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against
the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are
before this Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned HCGP and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners in both the petitions is that, the Family Court in
the petition filed by accused No.1 seeking dissolution of

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60044
CRL.P No. 2914 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4920 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010161102024



marriage with respondent, granted the decree of divorce by
dissolving the marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2.
Subsequently, out of vengeance, a false complaint has been
filed by her. He also contended that the petitioners in
Crl.P.No.2914/2024 are concerned, they being the mother-in-
law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, are no way
connected to the alleged offence. In the complaint itself, it is
specifically stated by respondent No.2 that ever since from the
date of marriage she was residing with accused No.1 along with
her mother and daughter separately and these petitioners were
residing separately. In such circumstances, except the bald and
omnibus allegation, no such specific allegations are forthcoming
against these petitioners. Accordingly, he prays to allow both
the petitions.

6. Learned HCGP as well as learned counsel for
respondent No.2 opposed the aforesaid prayer and contended
that since the charge sheet has been filed by the Police and the
statement of witnesses reveals the involvement of these
petitioners in the alleged crime, the proceedings against the

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60044
CRL.P No. 2914 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4920 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010161102024



petitioners cannot be quashed, at this stage. Accordingly, they
pray to dismiss the petitions.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and perused the documents available on record.
8. As could be gathered from records, the relationship
between the parties are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute
that immediately after marriage of respondent No.2 with
accused No.1, they were residing separately along with the
mother and daughter of respondent No.2. The complaint
averments is supported by the statement of material witnesses.
On careful scrutiny of entire charge sheet material, prima facie
case has been made out against accused No.1. However, as
regards accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned, except some bald
and omnibus allegations, there is no specific date, time and the
manner in which they harassed respondent No.2. Moreover,
admittedly, accused Nos.2 to 5 were residing separately.

9. In such circumstance, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of K. Subba Rao vs. State of Telangana represented by its

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60044
CRL.P No. 2914 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4920 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010161102024



Secretary, Department of Home and Others - 2024 INSC
960 , has held that the Court should be careful in proceeding
against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial
disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should
not be roped-in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless
specific instance of their involvement in the crime are made
out.
10. It is also settled position of law that if a person is made
to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping
allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of
criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of process of the
Court. The Courts pose a duty to subject the allegation levelled
in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, whether
there is any gain of truth in the allegations or whether they are
made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals
in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arise
from a matrimonial dispute.
11. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dara
Lakshmi Narayan vs. State of Telangana - 2025 3 SCC
735 , held in paragraph Nos.25 and 28 as under:

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60044
CRL.P No. 2914 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4920 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010161102024



“ 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
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

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60044
CRL.P No. 2914 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4920 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010161102024



wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again,
cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family
in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.”

12. In the instant case, a bare perusal of charge sheet
materials clearly disclose that the allegations made by the
complainant/respondent No.2 against petitioner Nos.1 to 4 in
Crl.P.No.2914/2024 i.e., accused Nos.2 to 5 are vague and
omnibus. There is no such allegation that the family members
harassed the complainant. The complainant has not provided
any specific details or described any particular instance of
harassment. She has not mentioned the time, date, place or a
manner in which the alleged harassment occurred or the details
of the nature of demand or its particulars. Therefore, the
charge sheet lacks concrete and precise allegations against
accused Nos.2 to 5. The mere general allegations of
harassment without pointing out the specific details would not
be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings against any
person. Further respondent No.2 herself has stated in the
complaint that these petitioners were residing separately.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60044
CRL.P No. 2914 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4920 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010161102024



13. It is settled position of law that, Courts have to be careful
and cautious in dealing with complaint and must take pragmatic
realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial
disputes, where the allegations have to be scrutinized with
great care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage
of justice and abuse of process of Court.
14. Hence, even if the entire allegations in the charge sheet
are taken on its face value, there is no such prima facie case
made out against petitioner Nos.1 to 4 in Crl.P.No.2914/2024.
As such, continuation of proceedings against them i.e., accused
Nos.2 to 5 is nothing but abuse of process of Court.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER

i. Crl.P.No.4920/2024 filed by the
petitioner - accused No.1 is dismissed
and proceedings against him shall continue.

ii. Crl.P.No.2914/2024 filed by the
petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 is
allowed in part. The proceedings against
them in C.C.No.26980/2023 arising out of
Crime No.384/2023 registered by the 1st
respondent - Police for the offences

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60044
CRL.P No. 2914 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4920 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010161102024



punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506, 120B, 34 of IPC read with Sections 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, presently
pending on the file of learned IV Addl. Civil
Judge & JMFC, Anekal, are hereby quashed.



SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE






PKS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20