The court held that vague allegations against relatives of a principal accused are insufficient to sustain criminal charges, constituting an abuse of legal process.

ORDER :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

The captioned petition is filed by accused Nos.7 to 11 under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the proceedings pending in Crime No.13/2025 registered by Madivala Police Station, Bengaluru City, on the file of 39^th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (39^th A.C.J.M), Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 64 (2)(m), 318(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.3802/2025, wherein the proceedings were quashed insofar as accused Nos.2 to 6, who are relatives of accused No.1. Placing reliance on the said judgment, learned counsel would contend that the petitioners herein, who are also relatives of accused No.1, have been falsely implicated and that the continuation of proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly when this Court has already extended the benefit of quashment to similarly placed co-accused.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the material on record, this Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the judgment rendered by this Court in Criminal Petition No.3802/2025. In order to examine whether order passed by this Court therein would enure to the benefit of the present petitioners and whether the proceedings are liable to be quashed even against them for the offences punishable under Section 64 (2)(m) and other allied offences, it would be apposite to extract the relevant portions of the said judgment. Paragraphs 4 to 9 thereof, which have a direct bearing on the controversy in issue, are extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“4. Before proceeding further into the merits of the matter, this Court finds it appropriate to take note of the initial complaint lodged by respondent No.2 before the Kuvempunagara Police Station, Mysuru. The written complaint, submitted by respondent No.2/defacto complainant on 30.09.2023, bears considerable relevance to the present proceedings. The relevant extract of the said complaint is reproduced hereunder:

"After my masters, I was hired into GE company and as days passed friends happened and also Guru happened, ofcourse I had unwanted attention by other guys as well which I never cared and amongst all of this Guru became a friend, a good one-a real good one. This friendship blossomed further into being a little possessive over each other and eventually a relationship [#PrAna] where so many others (guy) tried to give mazars and sabotage this as well. But nothing worked as we loved each other and never gave up on each other.

Things were great uptil we told at our homes, my mother convinced my father in a second and tadaa he became another son here in our family. He would take care of me as if I'm a delicate evening flower. Ofcourse I agree I kinda kept telling him again and again to tell about us in his place. This eventually happened and things were cool uptil he came back the next day after that when a call came late night, I remember it as I was in the parlour getting my eyebrows threaded and him waiting for me to show him my look. But what I saw broke my heart, he as there eyes all puffed, red and in a pool of tears telling "something happened to my mother, I need to leave" and left. The next day I understood his mother did not want him & me marrying. He did travel like a down to cool me and back to his mother, analysed all the gana (I think) telling we were different animals and we wouldn't match and all. But this never stopped us, we grew even more closer.

Then came my birthday where he celebrated Dome Café and it was all over my Insta food (as of today