Shivaleela B Kodad v. State Of Karnataka - Criminal Petition

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 15, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Shivaleela B Kodad vs State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:13376
CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024

                  HC-KAR

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                             BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                            CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12258 OF 2024
                  BETWEEN:

                  1.    SHIVALEELA B. KODAD
                        W/O BASAVARAJA M.KODAD,
                        AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

                  2.    BASAVARAJA M. KODAD
                        S/O LATE MAHANTHAPPA,
                        AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

                        BOTH RESIDING AT
                        KASHIPURA MAIN ROAD,
                        SIDDARAMA EXTENSION,
                        2ND CROSS,
                        "SAISTHUTHI NILAYA",

Digitally signed by VINOBHA NAGARA,
SANJEEVINI J SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204.
KARISHETTY
Location: High ...PETITIONERS
Court of Karnataka
(BY SRI T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

                  AND:

                  1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                        BY CHITRADURGA WOMENS POLICE STATION,
                        REPRESENTED BY SPP,
                        HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

                  2.    SMT. LAKSHMI B.T.,
                            -2-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC:13376
                                  CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024

HC-KAR

  W/O SHARATH B.K.,
  CURRENTLY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
  RESIDING AT AMOGHA LAYOUT,
  BANK COLONY,
  CHITRADURGA TOWN,
  CHITRADURGA.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI PAVAN KUMAR N., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

   THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528

BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF
COGNIZANCE DATED 13.10.2024 ONE PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE I A.S.C.J AND J.M.F.C CHITRADURGA FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 506, 34, 498A, 504, 323 OF IPC AND SEC.3
AND 4 OF D.P ACT FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET ONE FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1/POLICE IN C.C.NO.971/2023 FOUND
AT ANNEXURE-A1.

   THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                     ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question

the proceedings in C.C.No.971 of 2023 registered for offences -3- NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

punishable under Sections 506, 34, 498A, 504, 323 of the IPC

and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

1. Heard Sri T Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing

for petitioner, Sri B N Jagadeesha, learned Additional State

Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Pavan Kumar N,

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

1. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

Petitioners are Mother-in-law and Father-in-law of the 2nd

respondent/complainant. The 2nd respondent/complainant and

the accused No.1 get married on 27-05-2020. It transpires that

the relationship between the two flounders. On floundering of

the relationship, several proceedings are instituted by the wife

against the husband and the in-laws or the husband against the

wife, as the case would be. The issue in the lis pertains to

setting the criminal law into motion against the Mother-in-law

and Father-in-law, the accused Nos.3 and 2 respectively. The

2nd respondent registers a complaint on 06-06-2023 for the

offences punishable under Section 323, 498A, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The said complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.62 -4- NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

of 2023. The police conduct investigation and file a charge

sheet and the proceeding is registered as C.C. No. 971 of 2023.

Registration of the C.C. is what has driven the petitioners to

this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel Sri Sunil S Rao appearing for the

petitioners would vehemently contend that a perusal of the

complaint or the summary of the charge sheet, as the case

would be, would not indicate any of the ingredients that are

necessary to drive home the offence under Section 498A of the

IPC. Vague and omnibus statements are made in the complaint

and also in the summary of the charge sheet by the

complainant/2nd respondent. Therefore, he would submit that

the proceedings be quashed as against accused Nos.2 and 3.

1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent/complainant submits that there are indeed

complaints against the accused nos.2 and 3, on the demand of

dowry. The complaint is narrated in great detail about the overt

act committed by the petitioners intermittently upon the

complainant, but would admit that they were not residing with -5- NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

the family and did reside separately. But would seek dismissal

of the petition.

1. The Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor also

would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the

complainant in contending that the police after investigation

have filed a charge sheet and in the light of the filing of the

charge sheet, further proceedings must be permitted to be

continued and it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full

blown trial.

1. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have

perused the material on record.

1. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The

relationship between accused no.1 and the complainant and its

floundering is a matter of record. The entire issue has now

triggered from the complaint. Therefore, I deem it appropriate

to notice the complaint, it reads as follows:

-6-

NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

" ೆ,
ೕ ಇ ೆಕ
ಮ ಾ ೕ ೆ ೕಷ
ತ ದುಗ

ಂದ,

ಲ ! ".# ಗಂಡ ಶರ' ".(ೆ
34 ವಷ , ಗೃ +, ಂ ಾಯತ ಜ.ಾಂಗ,
/ಾ 0ಾಸ #302, 3 .ೇ(ಾ , 23ಾ456 7ೇಔ9
.ಾಗರ:ಾ2 :ೆಂಗಳ<ರು 560072

ಸ=ಂತ ಊರು ಅ@ೕಘ 7ೇಔ9
:ಾ4ಂB (ಾ7ೋD, ತ ದುಗ
9513669445

2ಷಯ:- ಗಂಡ ಮತುE ಅವರ ಕFೆಯವರು ವರದ Gೆ Hರುಕುಳ (ೊಡುIEರುವ ಬ ೆK.

---

LೕಲMಂಡ 2 ಾಸದ 0ಾNOಾದ ಲ !ೕ".# ಆದ .ಾನು ತಮR S
(ೇT(ೊಳUVವW3ೇ.ೆಂದXೆ, ನನ ೆ ನಮR ತಂ3ೆ Yಾ Zವ@ಗKದ 2.ೋಬನಗರ 0ಾNOಾದ
ಶರ' ".(ೆ. ತಂ3ೆ ಬಸವXಾಜ ಎಂ. (ೊಡ\ ಎಂಬುವ6 ೆ (ೊಟು ^.ಾಂಕ: 27-12-2020
ರಂದು ತ ದುಗ ನಗರದ Z ೕXಾಮ ಕ7ಾ4ಣ ಮಂಟಪದ S ಸುaಾರು 30 ಲb ರೂ ಾ
ಖಚು aಾe ಮದು0ೆ aಾeರುYಾEXೆ. ನನf ಗಂಡ ಶರ' :ೆಂಗಳ<6ನ S 3(ೆ gೆ(ಾfಲhೕ
ಕಂಪDಯ S ಇಂhDಯ ಆ5 (ೆಲಸದ Sದುiದ6ಂದ ಮದು0ೆ ಸಮಯದ S ಶರ' ರವ6 ೆ
ಸುaಾರು ಒಟು 12 Yೊಲ ತೂಕದ ಒಂದು ಬಂ ಾರದ kೈ , :ಾ 7ೈ9 /ಾಗೂ 3
ಉಂಗುರಗಳನುf /ಾಗೂ 3 (ೆh :ೆTV ಾaಾನನುf (ೊಟು ನನ ೆ ಸುaಾರು 30 Yೊಲದ
ಬಂ ಾರದ ಆಭರಣಗಳನುf aಾeNದುi ಮದು0ೆ ಬgೆ ಮIEತರ ಖಚು ಗT ೆ ಸುaಾರು 2 ಲb
ರೂ ಾ ನಗದು ಹಣ ವರದ GೆOಾ5 (ೊಟು ಮದು0ೆ aಾeರುYಾEXೆ. ಮದು0ೆ ನಂತರ
.ಾನು ನನf ಗಂಡನ pೊYೆ Zವ@ಗK(ೆM /ೋ5ದುi ಅ Sಂದ .ಾವWಗಳU ನನf ಗಂಡ (ೆಲಸ
aಾಡುIEರುವ ಸqಳ(ೆM .ಾನು ನನf ಗಂಡ ಶರ' aಾವ ಬಸವXಾr ಎಂ. (ೊಡ\ /ಾಗೂ
ಅYೆE Zವ ೕ7ಾ ". (ೊಡ\ ಎಲSರೂ :ೆಂಗಳ<6 ೆ /ೋ5ದುi ಅ S h-201,
23ಾ456 XೆNFೆD , 23ಾ456 7ೇಔ9 pೊ4ೕI ನಗರ 7ಎ (ಾ , :ೆಂಗಳ<ರು ಇ S
ಅ ಾ9 Lಂ9 ನ S ಮ.ೆ aಾe 0ಾಸ0ಾ53ೆiವW. :ೆಂಗಳ<6 ೆ /ೋ3ಾ5Dಂದಲೂ ನನ ೆ
ನನf ಗಂಡ ಮತುE ಅYೆE, aಾವ ಎಲSರೂ Dನ ೆ DಮR ತಂ3ೆ Yಾ (ೊ# ರುವ ಬಂ ಾರದ
ಒಡ0ೆಗಳನುf Yೆ ೆದು(ೊಂಡು :ಾ ಅಂತ (ೇಳUIEದiರು. .ಾನು ಊ6 ೆ /ೋ3ಾಗ -7- NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

Yೆ ೆದು(ೊಂಡು ಬರುYೆEೕ.ೆಂತ /ೇTದರೂ (ೇಳ3ೇ ನನ ೆ ಬಂ ಾರವನುf ಈಗ7ೇ ತಂದು
(ೊಡುವಂYೆ ಅYೆE aಾವ ಗಂಡ aಾ0ೆಗಂಡ ಎಲSರೂ 3ೈ ಕ ಮತುE aಾನNಕ0ಾ5
ಂNಸುIEದiರು. ಈ ಮuೆ4 2021 Lೕ ನ S ಕXೋನ pಾNEOಾ5ದi6ಂದ .ಾವW :ೆಂಗಳ<ರು
"ಟು Zವ@ಗK(ೆM ಬಂದು 0ಾಸ0ಾ53ೆiವW. .ಾನು ಂ¸É Yಾಳ7ಾಗ3ೇ 2021 ಜೂ @ದಲ
0ಾರದ S ನನf 7ಾಂv kೈ , .ೆಕ , ಬ ೆ ಮIEತರ ಒಟು 30 Yೊಲದ ಬಂ ಾರದ
ಒಡ0ೆಗಳನುf ನನf ಗಂಡD ೆ 7ೋ ಕಟ ಲು ಮತುE "h.ೆ aಾಡ7ೆಂತ ಬಂಡ0ಾಳ(ಾM5
ತಂದು (ೊ# ರುYೆEೕ.ೆ. ಆLೕ7ೆ ಕXೋನ ಕeLOಾದ Lೕ7ೆ .ಾವW :ೆಂಗಳ<6 ೆ
0ಾಪ ಾ3ೆವW. ನಂತರ :ೆಂಗಳ<6ನ S ನನf ಗಂಡ ತನf ಾಲ ಕಟ ಲು DಮR ತಂ3ೆ Yಾ
ಕFೆ ಂದ 40 ಲb ರೂ ಾ ಹಣ Yೆ ೆದು(ೊಂಡು ಬರುವಂYೆ ನನf ಗಂಡ ನನ ೆ ಪ I^ನ
:ೈಯುವWದು, ಕMಪWಟ 2kಾರಗಳನುf 3ೊಡwದು aಾe ಜಗಳ aಾಡುವWದು aಾಡುIEದiನು.
ಇದನುf .ೋe ನನf ಅಣx.ಾದ ಪ ^ೕy ಕುaಾರನು ನನf ಗಂಡD ೆ ಆಗ Iಂಗಳ (ೊ.ೆ
0ಾರದ S 5 ಲb ರೂ ಾ ನಗದು ಹಣವನುf :ೆಂಗಳ<6 ೆ ತಂದು ನನf ಗಂಡD ೆ
(ೊ# ರುYಾE.ೆ. ಆLೕ7ೆ ಸ=ಲz ^ನ ಎಲSರೂ ಸುಮRDದುi ಆLೕ7ೆ Dನf ತಂ3ೆ ಕFೆ ಂದ
ಮತEಷು ಹಣ ಮತುE ಒಂದು ಮ.ೆಯನುf Yೆ ೆN(ೊಡು ಅಂತ ನನf ಗಂಡ ನನ ೆ :ೈಯುವWದು
/ೊFೆಯುವWದು aಾಡುIEದiನು. ನನf ಅYೆE Dೕನು ತವರುಮ.ೆ ೆ /ೊದXೆ "ZÉÆÑÃ7ೆ ೌರಮRನ
/ಾ ೆ 0ಾಪ ಬರುIEೕOಾ DೕವW ನಮ ೆ ಮದು0ೆ ಸಮಯದ S ಏನೂ (ೊ# ಲS ಈಗ ನನf
ಮಗD ೆ ಒಂದು ಮ.ೆಯನುf Yೆ ೆN(ೊಡುವಂYೆ Dನf ತಂ3ೆ ೆ (ೇಳU ಇಲS^ದiXೆ Dನfನುf
ಾ N ನನf ಮಗD ೆ :ೇXೆ ಮದು0ೆ aಾಡುYೆEೕ0ೆ ಅಂYೆ7ಾS :ೈ3ಾಡುIEದiರು. ನಮR aಾವ
ಹಣ ತರ^ದiXೆ ಇವಳನುf ಮ.ೆ ಂದ /ೊರ ೆ /ಾಕು Dನ ೆ /ೆ }ನ ವರದ Gೆ (ೊಡುವ
ಹುಡು5ಯನುf ತಂದು ಮದು0ೆ aಾಡುYೆEೕ0ೆಂತ :ೈಯುIEದiರು.

ೕ5ರು0ಾಗ ಇವರ ಂ ೆಯನುf Yಾಳ7ಾರ3ೇ .ಾನು 2kಾರವನುf ನನf ತಂ3ೆ
Yಾ ಅಣxD ೆ ITNದi6ಂದ ಅವರು ನನf ಗಂಡD ೆ ತ ದುಗ (ೆM ಬರುವಂYೆ /ೇTದುi .ಾನು
ಮತುE ನನf ಗಂಡ ಶರ' ಇಬ~ರು ೆ ೆ ಂಬ 2021 ರ S ತ ದುಗ ದ Sರುವ ನಮR ಮ.ೆ ೆ
ಬಂ3ೆವW. ತ ದುಗ ದ ನಮR ಮ.ೆಯ S ನಮR ಅಣx ಪ ^ೕಪನು ನನf ಗಂಡ ಶರ'D ೆ 10 ಲb
ರೂ ಾ ಹಣವನುf (ೊ# ರುYಾE.ೆ. ಅ Sಗೂ ನನf ಗಂಡ ಅYೆE aಾವ ಸುಮR.ಾಗ3ೇ ಮYೆE
ಪ3ೇ ಪ3ೇ ನನ ೆ ವರದ Gೆ ಹಣ(ಾM5 ಂ ೆ (ೊಡುIEದi6ಂದ 2021 ರ e ೆಂಬ
IಂಗಳಲೂS ಸಹ ನನf ತಂ3ೆ Yಾ ನನf ಗಂಡD ೆ ಮYೊELR 5 ಲb ರೂ ಾ ಹಣ
(ೊ# ರುYಾEXೆ. ಇ•ೆ 7ಾS ಹಣ ಒಡ0ೆ Dೕeದರೂ ಸಹ ನನf ಗಂಡ, Dೕನು ತಂದ ಹಣ
ಾ(ಾಗುವW^ಲS. ನನ ೆ (ೇವಲ 30 ಾ2ರ aಾತ ಸಂಬಳ ಬರುIEದುi hೕವ.ೋ ಾಯ(ೆM
Dೕನು Dನf ತಂ3ೆ Yಾ ಮ.ೆ ಂದ ಹಣ, ಆNE Yೆ ೆದು(ೊಂಡು ಬರ:ೇಕು Dನ ೆ "# ಕೂಳU
/ಾಕಲು .ಾ0ೇನು ಧಮ ಛತ ನFೆಸುIEಲS. Dೕನು ನಮR ಮ.ೆ ೆ "# ಊಟ aಾಡಲು
ಬಂ^^iೕOಾ ಅಂYೆ7ಾS :ೈದು ನನ ೆ ತುಂ:ಾ /ೊFೆದು ತುಂ:ಾ Hರುಕುಳ (ೊ# ದುi ನನ ೆ
ಾಯುವಂYೆ ಆ5ದi6ಂದ ಮತುE ನನf ಗಂಡ ನನfನುf ಕತುE ಸುH ಾ ಸಲು -8- NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

 ಪ ಯIfNರುYಾEXೆ. .ಾನು ಈ 2kಾರವನುf ತಂ3ೆ Yಾ        ೆ ‚ೕ     aಾe /ೇTದi6ಂದ
 ^.ಾಂಕ: 23-01-2022 11a.m ರಂದು ನƒಮ ತಂ3ೆ ತಂ3ೆ I ೆzೕ ಾ=„, ಅಣx ಪ ^ೕಪ
     ಕMಪz ಮದನ ಾ=„ aಾವ ನಟXಾಜರವರು :ೆಂಗಳU6 ೆ ಬಂದು ಇ•ೆ 7ಾS Oಾ(ೆ ನಮR
 ಮಗT ೆ YೊಂದXೆ (ೊಡುIE6 ಅಂತ (ೇTದi(ೆM ನನf ಗಂಡ ಅವXೆಲSರ ಎದು6 ೆ ನನ ೆ
 /ೊFೆಯಲು ಬಂ3ಾಗ ನನf ಅಣx ಅಡw ಬಂದು ಗ7ಾgೆ "eNದುi ಗ7ಾgೆ 2(ೋಪ(ೆM /ೊ5ದುi
 (ೊ.ೆ ೆ ನನf ಗಂಡ ನನ ೆ ಮ.ೆಯ Sರ:ೇಡ ಅಂತ ನನfನುf ಮ.ೆ           ಂದ /ೊರಗFೆ
 /ಾHದನು. ನನfನುf ನಮR ತಂ3ೆ ಅಣx 0ಾಪ        ತ ದುಗ (ೆM ಬಂ3ಾಗ .ಾನು ನನ ೆ ಗಂಡ
 :ೇಕು ಅಂತ ನನf ತ...zಲS^ದiರೂ ನನf3ೇ ತ ಾz53ೆ ನಮR ತಂ3ೆ ಮತುE ಅಣxನವರು /ಾ ೆ
 aಾಡ:ಾರ^ತುE ಎಂYೆ7ಾS ಇ3ೊಂದು ಸಲ ಇದ.ೆf7ಾS ಮXೆತು ಚ.ಾf5Xೋಣ0ೆಂತ L ೇಜ
 aಾe3ೆiನು. ಆ3ಾಗೂ4 ನನf ಗಂಡ ನನ ೆ Dನf pೊYೆ ೆ ಇರಲು ಆಗುವW^ಲS Dೕನು ನನ ೆ
 :ೇಡ ಅಂತ /ೇTರುYಾE.ೆ. .ಾನು ಸುaಾರು ^ನಗಳU ನನf ತಂ3ೆ Yಾ         ಮ.ೆಯ Sದುi
 ಮYೊEಂದು ಸಲ ನನ ೆ ಗಂಡ :ೇಕು ಅಂತ .ಾನು †ೆಬ ವ6 Iಂಗಳ S 0ಾಪ       :ೆಂಗಳ<6 ೆ
 /ೋ5ದುi ಆಗ ನ ನ ಗಂಡ .ಾವW 0ಾಸaಾಡುIEದi ಮ.ೆಯ 0ಾಸುE ಸ6            ಲS. ಮ.ೆ
 ಬದ     ೋಣ ಅಪz ಅಮRನ pೊYೆ :ೇಡ .ಾ2ಬ~Xೇ ಇXೋಣ ಅಂತ #302, 3 .ೇ(ಾ    ,
 23ಾ456 7ೇಔ9 .ಾಗರ:ಾ2 ಯ S ಮ.ೆ aಾeದುi .ಾ2ಬ~ರು ಚ.ಾf5ರ         ಅಂತ ಮ.ೆಯ
 ಅFಾ=     ಹಣವನುf ನನf ಅಣx.ೇ (ೊ# ರುYಾE.ೆ. .ಾವWಗಳU ಆ ಮ.ೆಯ Sದುi ಸುaಾರು 15
 ^ನಗಳ ನಂತರ ನನf ಗಂಡ ಊ6 ೆ /ೋ5ಬರುYೆEೕ.ೆಂತ /ೇT /ೋದವನು ಸುaಾರು
 ^ನಗ ಾದರೂ 0ಾಪ         ಬಂ^ರುವW^ಲS. ‚      aಾeದXೆ 6N‡ aಾಡುIEರುವW^ಲS.
 ಆದi6ಂದ ನನ ೆ ^ಕುM YೋಚದಂYಾ5 ಸುaಾರು ^ನಗಳU ಅ7ೆSೕ (ಾದು ಆLೕ7ೆ ಅ Sಂದ
 0ಾಪ     ಬಂದು ತ ದುಗ ದ S 0ಾಸ0ಾ5ರುYೆEೕ.ೆ. ಆದi6ಂದ ನನ ೆ ವರದ Gೆ Hರುಕುಳ Dೕe
 ಗ7ಾgೆ aಾe /ೊFೆದು ಬeದು ಮ.ೆ      ಂದ /ೊರ/ಾHದ ನನf ಗಂಡ ಶರ' ಮತುE aಾವ
 ಬಸವXಾಜ ಮತುE ಅYೆE Zವ ೕ7ಾರವರ 2ರುದˆ (ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ ಜರು5ಸ:ೇ(ೆಂತ
 (ೇT(ೊಳUVYೆEೕ.ೆ.

^.ಾಂಕ:06-06-2023 ತಮR 2‰ಾ=N
Sd/-
B.T.Lakshmi" The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No. 62 of 2023, which

is investigated into and a charge sheet is filed against all the

three accused. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining

in column No. 17 reads as follows:

"17. (ೇNನ ಸಂ ಪE ಾXಾಂಶ -9- NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

3ೋ•ಾXೋಪGೆ ಪ# (ಾಲಂ ನಂಬ 12 ರ S ನಮೂ^Nರುವ ಆXೋ...ತನು Zವ@ಗK

2.ೋಬ ನಗರದ 0ಾNOಾ5ದುi ಸದ6ಯವನ pೊYೆಯ S ಾ -1 ರವರ ಮದು0ೆ ೊತುE
aಾe ^.ಾಂಕ:27-12-2020 ರಂದು ತ ದುಗ ನಗರದ Z ೕXಾಮ ಕ7ಾ4ಣ ಮಂಟಪದ S
ಮದು0ೆ aಾe(ೊ# ದುi ಮದು0ೆOಾದ ನಂತರ ಎ;1 ರವರು ಾ -1 ರವರನುf Zವ@ಗK(ೆM
ಕXೆದು(ೊಂಡು /ೋ5 ಎ;2 ಮತುE ಎ,3 ರವXೊಂ^ ೆ ಸಂ ಾರ aಾಡುIEರು0ಾಗ ಎ,1 6ಂದ
ಎ,3 ರವರುಗಳU ಸಣx ಪWಟ 2kಾರಗT ೆ ಪ3ೇ ಪ3ೇ ಜಗಳ aಾe Dನf ತಂ3ೆ Yಾ ಗಳU
ಮದು0ೆ (ಾಲದ S ಕeL ವರದ Gೆ ಹಣ ಬಂ ಾರ (ೊ# ರುYಾEXೆ ಇನುf /ೆ }ನ ವರದ ಣ
ಮತುE ಬಂ ಾರ Yೆ ೆದು(ೊಂಡು :ಾ ಎಂದು aಾನNಕ /ಾಗು 3ೈ ಕ ಂ ೆ DೕಡುIEದುi 2021
Lೕ IಂಗTನ S ಕXೋ.ಾ pಾNEOಾ5ದi6ಂದ ಎ; 1 6ಂದ ಎ3 ರವರು ಾ ಯನುf
:ೆಂಗಳ<6Dಂದ Zವ@ಗK(ೆM ಕXೆದು(ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು Zವ@ಗKದ Sರು0ಾಗ ಎ 1, ಎ:2 ರವ6 ೆ
ಕXೋನ ಬಂದು ಆಸzYೆ ೆ 3ಾಖ7ಾ5ದುi ಸದ6 ಆಸzYೆ ಖ ನುf ಕ# ಅಂತ ಾ -1 ರವ6 ೆ
ಭಲವಂತ aಾeದi6ಂದ ಾ -1 ರವರು ^.ಾಂಕ;09-05-2021 ರಂದು ತನf ಅಣxನ
•ಾYೆ ಂದ ಾ -1 ರವರ •ಾYೆ ನಂಬ 50100224602011 ೆ ಹಣ /ಾHN(ೊಂಡು
Zವ@ಗK, aಾ4B ಆಸzYೆ •ಾYೆ ೆ 44,770 ರೂ ಾ ಗಳನುf ವ ಾ ವGೆ aಾeರುYಾEXೆ.
ನಂತರ ಅ3ೇ ^ನ 20,000 ಮತುE 10 .ೇ Yಾ6ೕŽನಂದು 30,000 ಒಟು ನನf ಗಂಡನ
•ಾYೆ ೆ 50,000 ರೂ ಾ ಗಳನುf ವ ಾ ವGೆ aಾeರುYಾEXೆ. ಅ Sಗೂ ಎ 1 ರವರು
ಸುಮR.ಾಗ3ೇ ಪ3ೇ ಪ3ೇ ಂ ೆ DೕಡುIEದುiದ6ಂದ ಜೂ @ದಲ 0ಾರ, ನ0ೆಂಬ
IಂಗTನ S /ಾಗೂ 2022 ಏ... • ನ S ಒಟು ಮೂರು ಹಂತದ S ಾ -1 ರವ6 ೆ ತನf ತಂ3ೆ
Yಾ (ೊ# \ದ ಬಂ ಾರದ 7ಾಂv kೈನು, ಬಂ ಾರದ .ೆPÉè , 4 ಬಂ ಾರದ ಬ ೆಗಳU,
ಉಂಗುರಗಳU ಎ7ಾS, ೇ6 ಸುaಾರು 30 Yೊಲ ಬಂ ಾರದ ಒಡ0ೆಗಳನುf (ೊ# ರುYಾEXೆ.
/ಾಗೂ ಆಗ 10 .ೇ 2021 ರ S, ನನf ಅಣx, ಪ ^ೕy ಕುaಾ Zವ@ಗK(ೆM ಬಂದು ನನf
ಗಂಡD ೆ 5 ಲb ರೂ ಾ (ೊeNರುYಾEXೆ. ಆದರೂ ಎ: 1 ರವರು ಾ -1 ರವ6 ೆ ನನ ೆ
(ೇವಲ 30,000 ರೂ ಾ ಸಂಬಂಳ ಬರುತE3ೆ. hೕವನ aಾಡಲು YೊಂದXೆ ಆಗುIE3ೆ Dನ ೆ
"# ಊಟ /ಾಕ:ೇ(ೆಂದು ಅ0ಾಚ4 ಶಬiಗTಂದ :ೈದು aಾನNಕ /ಾಗೂ 3ೈ ಕ ಂ ೆ Dೕe
ಾ ಣ :ೆದ6(ೆ /ಾHದi6ಂದ ಾ 2 ರವರು ತನf ಸಂಬಂ^ಕXೊಂ^ ೆ :ೆಂಗಳ<6 ೆ /ೋ5
2kಾರ aಾeದi(ೆM ಅವರ Lೕ7ೆಯೂ ಸಹ ಜಗಳ aಾe ಾ -1 ರವರನುf ಮ.ೆ ಂದ
/ೊರ ೆ /ಾHರುYಾEXೆಂದು ತD•ೆ ಂದ ದೃಢ ಪಟ LೕXೆ ೆ LೕಲMಂಡ ಎ; 1 6ಂದ ಎ 3
ರವರುಗಳ 2ರುದˆ ಕಲಂ 323, 504, 506, 498(ಎ), Xೆ;ಏ 34 ಐ...N /ಾಗು 3 & 4 e... ಆB
6ೕYಾ4 ಈ 3ೋ•ಾXೋಪGೆ ಪ# ಸ SN3ೆ."
A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in

column No.17 in juxtaposition with the complaint would

indicate that the allegations against the petitioners cannot be

• 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

taken as ingredients for permitting further proceedings to

continue. The offence is punishable under Section 498A of the

IPC, inter alia.

1. Jurisprudence is replete with the judgments of the

Apex Court on the issue, as to whether proceedings under 498A

of the IPC should be permitted to be continued or terminated in

the fact situation. If the summary of the charge sheet and the

complaint are noticed, further proceedings cannot be permitted

to be continued against these petitioners, in the light of the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of [KAHKASHAN

KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR1](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/76640285/) wherein it is held as follows:

"Issue involved
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 appellant in-laws are in the nature of general
omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be
quashed?

1. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498-AIPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her 1 (2022 SCC Online SC 162)

• 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

 in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention.
 However, it is equally true, that in recent times,
 matrimonial litigation in 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 [Section 498-A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/538436/) IPC as instruments to settle
 personal scores against the husband and his
 relatives.

1. This Court in its judgment in [Rajesh
   Sharma v. State of U.P. Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P.,
   (2018) 10 SCC 472: (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 301] , has
   observed : (SCC pp. 478-79, para 14)

              "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 Act 46
      of 1983. The expression "cruelty" in Section 498-A
      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.
      [Explanation to Section 498-A.] It is a matter of
      serious concern that large number of cases continue
      to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment
      of married women. We have 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
      visualised. 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."
   

• 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

1. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this
   Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh
   Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273: (2014) 3 SCC
   (Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4)

              "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 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 non-bailable 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 quite a number of cases, bedridden
      grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands,
      their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."
   

2. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of
   Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7
   SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been
   observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36)

              "32. It is a matter of common experience
      that most of these complaints under Section 498-
      A [IPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/) 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 is also a matter
      of serious concern.
   

3. The learned members of the Bar have
   enormous social responsibility and obligation to
   ensure that the social fibre 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

• 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

     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 498-A as 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 fibre,
     peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact.
     The members of the Bar should also ensure that one
     complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

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

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

3. 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

• 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

       for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an
       amicable settlement altogether. The process of
       suffering is extremely long and painful."

1. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta
   Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741: (2013) 1
   SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed
   : (SCC p. 749, para 21)

             "21. It would be relevant at this stage to take
      note of an apt observation of this Court recorded
      in [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/169522737/) v. L.H.V.
      Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733]
      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 : (SCC p. 698, para 12)
   
              '12. ... There has been an outburst of
      matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a
      sacred ceremony, the 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 commission of 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 other reasons which
      need not be mentioned here for not encouraging
      matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder
      over their defaults and terminate their 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."

• 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

1. Recently, in [K. Subba Rao v. State of
   Telangana K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018)
   14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also
   observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6)

              "6. ... The courts 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 instances of their involvement in the crime
      are made out."
   

2. The abovementioned decisions clearly
   demonstrate that this Court has at numerous
   instances expressed concern over the misuse of
   Section 498-AIPC 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.

3. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a
   perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, 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

• 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

 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.

1. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of
   harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a
   previous FIR Respondent 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 learned 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 1-4-2019, is distinct and
   independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an
   earlier FIR dated 11-12-2017.

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

3. Therefore, upon consideration of the
   relevant circumstances and in the absence of any
   specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it
   would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go
   through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and

• 17 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

     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."

(Emphasis supplied)

1. Subsequently, the Apex Court in the case of [MARAM

NIRMALA v. STATE OF TELANGANA2](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41933731/), has held as follows:

"..... ..... .....

1. The appellant(s) herein are the mother-in-law
   and father- in-law of respondent No. 2. They had filed a
   petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of
   the proceedings instituted against them in C.C. No.
   338/2023 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class
   Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise offence) at Nalgonda
   alleging offences punishable under Sections 498-
   A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.

2. By the impugned order, the said criminal petition
   has been disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant(s)
   herein to seek discharge in accordance with law. Hence,
   this appeal.

3. The case at hand pertains to allegations of
   cruelty and dowry demand made by the respondent
   No. 2 against the appellant(s) herein. A bare perusal
   of the FIR however, shows that the allegations made
   by respondent No. 2 are vague and omnibus
   inasmuch as there is an absence of any specific
   instance or occasion detailed with particulars 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2913

• 18 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

 wherein the appellant(s) demanded dowry from
 respondent No. 2 and on refusal of the same,
 subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. The
 only allegations levelled by respondent No. 2 against
 the appellants herein are that subsequent to the birth
 of her daughter, the conduct of her husband
 underwent a change, which is stated to have been on
 account of the alleged inducement exercised by the
 in-laws including the appellant(s) herein for the
 purpose of demanding additional dowry and that
 pursuant to the counselling conducted at the Women
 Police Station, Nalgonda, although the husband of
 respondent No. 2 and his family assured that she
 would be treated properly, they nevertheless
 continued to subject respondent No. 2 to mental and
 physical cruelty.

1. We therefore find that the aforesaid allegations
   levelled against the appellant(s), even if taken at their face
   value, do not prima facie disclose the commission of the
   alleged offences so as to warrant the initiation of criminal
   proceedings.

2. During the course of submissions, learned
   counsel for the appellant(s) brought to our notice the
   judgment of this Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi
   Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 ("Dara
   Lakshmi Narayana") as well as other judgments which
   squarely apply to this case. We have perused the same.

3. This Court speaking through one of us (B.V.
   Nagarathna, J.) in Dara Lakshmi Narayana, while dealing
   with the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings instituted
   by the respondent wife therein against her husband and in-
   laws who were charged with offences punishable under Sections 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP
   Act, 1961, held as follows:

"27. A mere reference to the names of
family members in a criminal case arising out of
a matrimonial dispute, without specific

• 19 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

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
particularised 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, Appellants 2 to 6, who
are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have
been living in different cities and have not resided in
the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent
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.

xxx

1. The inclusion of Section 498-A 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 498-AIPC 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 scrutinised, 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 498-A IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the

• 20 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

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.

xxx

1. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498-A IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant, husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498-A IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.

xxx

1. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by Respondent 2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against Appellant 1 and his family members i.e. Appellants 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within Category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in [Bhajan Lal State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426]. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants." (underlining by us)

• 21 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13376 CRL.P No. 12258 of 2024 HC-KAR

1. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the judgment of this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana would apply. Hence, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The proceedings instituted against the appellant(s) in C.C. No. 338/2023 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise offence) at Nalgonda stand quashed in relation to the appellants herein."

(Emphasis supplied)

In the light of the law as elucidated by the Apex Court, if the

proceedings are permitted to be continued against these

petitioners, it would become an abuse of the process of the law

and result in miscarriage of justice.

1. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.971 of 2023

pending before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge

and JMFC, Chitradurga stands quashed qua the

petitioners.
SD/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
BKP / List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0