Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against Six Distant Relatives Over Omnibus Claims, While Husband, Parents-In-Law And Brother-In-Law Face Proceedings

Respondent No. 2 alleged that, after her marriage to petitioner No. 1, he and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 harassed her for additional dowry, and that petitioner No. 1 forced her to engage in unnatural sexual acts.

She further alleged that petitioner No. 5 touched her inappropriately.

The complaint also made a general allegation that the other petitioners instigated the harassment.

Following registration of an FIR against all ten petitioners for offences under Sections 498A, 307, 354A, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioners sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of court.

In matrimonial prosecutions, distant relatives should not be prosecuted on omnibus allegations alone; specific instances of their involvement must be alleged.

The Court relied on K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, 2024 INSC 960, and Dara Lakshmi Narayan v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, which caution against prosecuting family members without specific allegations disclosing their active involvement.

The FIR invoked Sections 498A, 307, 354A, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The complaint contained allegations of dowry-related harassment and other conduct against petitioners Nos. 1 to 3, who lived with respondent No. 2, and a specific allegation of inappropriate touching against petitioner No. 5.

The Court held that these allegations required investigation and could not be assessed in detail at the quashing stage.

By contrast, petitioners Nos. 4 and 6 to 10 were described as distant relatives, and the complaint did not specify their individual acts beyond a general allegation of instigation.

Applying the cited authorities, the Court found that continuing proceedings against them would constitute an abuse of process.

Proceedings against petitioners Nos. 4 and 6 to 10 (accused Nos. 4 and 6 to 10) were quashed; the petition was dismissed as to petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and 5, against whom proceedings were to continue.

The Court directed that its observations should not affect the trial court’s consideration of the case.