ORDER : 1. In Crl.P.201620/2023, the accused No.6 who is the petitioner seeking to quash the FIR, complaint and charge- sheet in Cr.No.119/2022. In Crl.P.201367/2024, the accused Nos.3 to 5 have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR and charge-sheet. In Crl.P.201627/2024, the accused No.2 approached this Court seeking to quash the FIR and the charge-sheet. 2. All these proceedings arising out of the same charge-sheet and against the same accused. However, filed through different petitions seeking for the same relief. Therefore, all the petitions are taken up for consideration. Factual matrix of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 16.11.2022, the respondent No.2 lodges a complaint stating that her marriage was performed with accused No.1 in Dharwad on 10.08.2020. It is further stated that, after the marriage both husband and wife were living in a rented house in Dharwad City from 10.08.2020 to 04.09.2020. It is alleged that the accused No.1 took Rs.1,25,000/- from the complainant for the purpose of doing business. In the meantime, the complainant gave birth to a girl child who died on the next date. The accused No.1 stated to have abused the complainant in filthy language and he was not good with her. In the year 2022, the complainant went to Kalaburagi. The accused Nos.1 and 2 used to harass her by stating that she has to work and earn money. It is further stated that all her in-laws were harassing her in one or the other pretext. Therefore, she lodged a complaint against all the in-laws before the respondent-Police. 4. Heard Sri. Md. Idris Jagirdar and Sri. Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, learned counsels for petitioner, Sri.Gopal Krishna Yadav learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. Shantanu Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in all the cases. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the in-laws of respondent No.2. The allegations made against these in-laws are that they were harassing the respondent No.2 both physically and mentally. However, the said allegations are omnibus in nature. The petitioners have been implicated falsely in these cases in order to harass them. 6. The allegations made against these in-laws are that they were harassing the respondent No.2 both physically and mentally. However, the said allegations are omnibus in nature. The petitioners have been implicated falsely in these cases in order to harass them. 6. It is further submitted that, even on reading the entire averments of the complaint and also averments of the charge-sheet, the said averments do not disclose the ingredients of the provision under Section 498-A of IPC. Such being the case, asking them to face the trial would amount to abuse of process of law and therefore, the petitions against these petitioners has to be allowed and the cases have to be quashed. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petitions. 7. Per Contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed a statement of objection stating that all the petitioners and in-laws of the respondent No.2 were harassing the respondent No.2 in one or the other pretext. She was not allowed to work properly. The accused No.1 was not discharging his duty as a dutiful husband. The accused No.1 was not taking proper care of the respondent No.2. After she gave birth to a child, she has undergone mental trauma after the death of her child. 8. It is further submitted that the in-laws including her husband were demanding additional dowry for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for the purpose of setting up of business to accused No.1. Therefore, the allegations are serious in nature, which are made out against the petitioners herein. Therefore, it is not appropriate at this stage to quash the proceedings. Making such submissions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 prays to dismiss the petitions. 9. Similarly, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State also vehemently submitted that there are serious allegations made out against the petitioners, they are the root cause for the cruelty of which the respondent No.2 had meted out in her matrimonial house. Therefore, at this juncture, it is not appropriate to grant the relief as prayed for. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petitions. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, now, it is relevant to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petitions. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, now, it is relevant to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others , (2022) 6 SCC 599 , paragraph No.15 held as under: “15. In 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, (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.” 11. On careful reading of the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is held that in the absence of any specific role attributed by the accused, it would be unjust if the parents are forced to go through the turbulations of the trial i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relief of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. 12. In the present case, on careful reading of the averments of the complaint, the respondent No.2 made several allegations against the petitioners are omnibus in nature. There is no specific over-act attributed against each individual. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that asking the petitioners to face the trial would be an abuse of the process of law. Hence, the charge-sheet against the petitioners required to be quashed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER : i) The Criminal Petitions are allowed. ii) The entire proceedings in CC.No.2926/2023 in Crime No.119/2022 in FIR No.2333/2022 pending on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, is hereby set aside. iii) The petitioners are discharged for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.