A court cannot hold individuals accountable based on general allegations; specific acts must be substantiated, especially when accused do not reside with the complainant.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

Heard Sri Mogha Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri B.C. Jaka, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure with the following prayer:

“Therefore, it is prayed this Hon’ble Court may be pleased quash the impugned order dated 09-12- 2024 for taking cognizance and issued summons against to the Petitioners No.2 to 12 in C.C.No.5529/2024 pending before the Hon’ble Learned I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC-II Bidar in Crime No.27/2023 Janewada P S Bidar for the offence U/Sec 498(A), 323, 109 R/w 34 of IPC in the Interest of Justice.”

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

Respondent No.2 filed a complaint with Janwada Police Bidar District on 20.03.2023 which was registered in Crime No.27/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A , 323, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

4. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that: respondent No.2 got married to Ankush Wagge on way 02.12.2020 and it was an arranged marriage. Thereafter, respondent No.2 joined the matrimonial home and for a brief period, they had a happy married life. 5. Thereafter, for trivial reasons, the petitioners herein started abusing and assaulting respondent No.2. She was somehow tolerating the same and on 19.03.2023 at about 10:00 p.m. the petitioners assaulted her by pulling her hairs and dashed her head to sofa set and thrown out of the matrimonial home.

6. When she was lying on the road with a blood injury, the neighbors called the police and she was admitted to the hospital and thereafter on 20.03.2023, she had lodged the official complaint against the petitioners.

7. Police after thorough investigation, filed the chargesheet against all the petitioners which is now pending in C.C. No.5529/2024.

8. During the course of arguments, Sri Mogha Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo not pressing the petition insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are the parents-in-law of responded No.2. 9. Sri Mogha Sudhakar Rao further contends that petitioner Nos.3 to 12 are not residing in the same house along with petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.2. General and omnibus allegations are levelled against them and sought for quashing of the pending proceedings. 10. Per contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri B.C. Jaka, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 support the continuation of the criminal case against all of them.

11. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that admittedly petitioner Nos.3 to 12 are residing separately. They did not share the common roof along with respondent No.2, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and husband of respondent No.2.

12. Moreover, petitioner Nos.3 to 12 are the relatives and they are all married and separately living in their respective houses. Even on the date of incident, the presence of all the petitioners is not spelled out with specific overt acts.

13. Omnibus and general allegations levelled against the petitioners would not be sufficient enough to proceed against petitioner Nos.3 to 12 in the pending criminal case, as it would amount to abuse of process of law.

14. View of this Court in this regard is supported by the principles of law enunciated in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The State Of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 .

15. Hence, the following:

ORDER (a) Placing the memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, petition against petitio