Karnataka HC Keeps Case Against 8 Husband’s Relatives Alive Over Alleged Dowry Demands, Forced Abortion And Assault

The complainant alleged that she married accused No.1 while she was a minor, following an earlier sexual relationship, and that her in-laws and other relatives participated in dowry demands and harassment.

She further alleged that, in July 2025, she was forcibly given medicine that caused an abortion, and that family members assaulted and threatened her relatives during a subsequent dispute.

Police filed a charge sheet against accused Nos. 1–11, including the petitioners, for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the POCSO Act, the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

Accused Nos. 2–9 sought to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, contending that the allegations against them were vague, omnibus, and delayed.

Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice; the power is exercised by assessing whether the prosecution materials disclose a prima facie case, rather than deciding disputed facts at the quashing stage.

The Court considered State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599; Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667; Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741; K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452; Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636; and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 73.

It accepted the general principles that omnibus allegations against relatives may justify quashing, that delay may be relevant, and that the inherent power may prevent abuse, while holding that their application depends on the materials in the particular case.

The Court also considered the alleged offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 85, 89, 133, 115(2), 189(2), 191(1), 191(2), 351(2), 352 read with 190 of the BNS; Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act; Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

The Court found that the school certificate prima facie showed the complainant was under 13 when she married accused No.1, and that the marriage and date of birth were not disputed by the petitioners.

It considered the complaint and the victim’s further statement to police, which attributed involvement to accused Nos. 2–9 in dowry-related conduct, the alleged assault and threats, and the events surrounding the abortion and subsequent confrontation.

Although the petitioners relied on the victim’s statement before the Magistrate, which they said implicated only accused No.1, the Court concluded that the complaint and police statement provided sufficient material against the petitioners at this stage.

The alleged delay was not decisive because the Court regarded its explanation as a matter for trial; likewise, the disputed allegations were not to be resolved in the quashing proceedings.

The Court noted that the POCSO and BNS sexual-offence allegations were directed against accused No.1, but found prima facie material concerning the petitioners in relation to dowry and other alleged offences.

Criminal Petition No. 200269 of 2026, filed by accused Nos. 4–7, and Criminal Petition No. 200270 of 2026, filed by accused Nos. 2, 3, 8 and 9, were both dismissed.