(Prayer: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.p.c., praying to quash the entire proceedings in c.c.no.19305/2024 pending on file of the Hon’ble xxxvii addl. cmm Bengaluru which is arising out of cr.no.256/2023 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station, Bengaluru, for alleged offences p/u/s 498a, 323, 504, 34 of IPC and sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.)
Cav Order:
1. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 stands at the doors of this Court calling in question the proceedings in CC.No.19305 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:
2.1. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The accused no.1 / petitioner no.1 is the husband and the petitioner no.2 / accused no. 2 is the Mother-in-law. The 1st petitioner and the complainant get married on 19-01-2020. The relationship between the two appears to have turned sore immediately owing to certain compatibility issues. However, a male child was born from the wedlock on 05-09-2021. The 2nd respondent/complainant is said to have moved out of the matrimonial house to her parents' house after the birth of the child. The 1st petitioner registers a petition for divorce before the concerned Family Court at Mysore, seeking annulment of marriage in M.C.No.78 of 2022. However, the 2nd respondent/complainant files a petition in M.C.No.799 of 2022 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. During the subsistence of the aforesaid two proceedings, it is the averment in the petition that the complainant comes to the matrimonial house when the accused nos.1 and 2 were not in the house, breaks open the lock, dismantles the CCTV and enters the house. It is on this score the mother-in-law/2nd petitioner has registered a private complaint, which is now pending consideration at the hands of the concerned Court in C.C.No.10132 of 2022.
2.2. The 2nd respondent/complainant then institutes a civil suit in O.S.No.199 of 2023 seeking an injunctory relief against the husband/1st petitioner restraining him from contracting the second marriage. In the said proceeding, an application is filed by the 1st petitioner/husband under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking closure of the proceedings, as that was a suit that was not even entertainable. The complainant then files Criminal Miscellaneous No.16 of 2023 before the concerned Court invoking the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. That is challenged before this Court in a separate petition W.P.No.14399 of 2023 and there is an interim order of stay operating against all the members of the family except the husband.
2.3. When things stood thus, the complainant registers a complaint before the jurisdictional police on 20-08-2023. The jurisdictional police, on the complaint so registered, issues notice to the petitioners and calls them for counselling. When the counselling fails, the police register a crime on 13-09-2023, though the complaint was registered on 20-08-2023. It then becomes a crime in Crime No.256 of 2023 for the afore-quoted offences. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against two only, the mother-in-law and the husband. The filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
3. Heard Sri M C Ravi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri B N Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Thushanath C V, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that, not one but several proceedings are instituted by the wife against the husband and the mother-in-law, all bringing out frivolous allegations that happen in the day to day matrimonial life in a family. The learned counsel would submit that the complainant goes to the parental house for delivery and does not return, but files a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in Bangalore. That way several proceedings are pending against each other. Not stopping at that, when settlement did not come about even before the police, the police had to register the crime for the afore-quoted offences. The learned counsel submits that, a perusal at the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet would not indicate any offence, much less, the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 of the IPC .
5. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would vehemently refute the submission in contending that the ingredients brought out in the complaint are particular overt acts against each of the persons. The husband and the mother-in-law have been instrumental in torturing the wife and driving her away from the house on demand of dowry. When the demand of dowry did not get fulfilled, she was asked not to come back to the matrimonial house and therefore she was forced to come into the house and for the said act the crime is registered and is being tried before the jurisdictional Court. With all these factors, the learned counsel submits it becomes a matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean.
6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor also would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant and would contend that there are in fact allegations that would touch upon the ingredients of all the offences and seeks dismissal of the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. Since the entire issue has now triggered from the subject complaint, it becomes necessary to notice a little history to the said complaint. The relationship between the parties to the lis is not in dispute. About 4 or 5 proceedings have sprung prior to the registration of the impugned complaint. The complaint is dated 20-08-2023, but the crime is registered on 13-09-2023. What happens in the interregnum is talks of settlement before the police station, as directed by the Apex Court in the case of LALITA KUMARI v. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. When the settlement talks or reconciliation efforts made out before the police station failed, the police register a crime in Crime No. 256 of 2023. The crime is, on a complaint so registered by the complainant. The complaint reads as follows:
Date: 20/08/2023
To
The Station House Officer / The Inspector of police,
Basavangudi Women's Police Station,
Thyagaraja Nagar,
Banashankari II Stage,
Bengaluru – 560070
From,
Name: Smt. Advika Kavya Parlakoti
W/O: Koushik M.S.
Age: 28 years
Address: No. 2, 1st Floor, 1st main, 1st Cross, 2nd Block, Gruhalakshmi Layout, Kamalanagar, Basaveshwarnagar, Bangalore – 560 079.
Mobile No: 9591023966 Respected Sir/Madam,
Subject-Filing a complaint to register a Case against (for ill treatment and Demanding Dowry, Harassing Physically and mentally, and threatening):
My Husband: Koushik M.S.
My Mother-in-Law: Kamalakshi B.P.
Both are R/at. No. 1154,
2nd Cross, Paduvana Road,
4th Stage, T.K. Layout,
Kuvempunagar,
Mysore-570023
1) My Husband's Uncle: Keshava B.P.
2) My Husband's Aunt: Bhagyavathi (W/o Keshava B.P.)
3) My Husband's Cousin: Lavi Subhaiah (S/o Keshava B.P.)
4) My Husband's Cousin: Likith Somaiah (S/o Keshava B.P.)
5) My Husband's Uncle: BP Bassappa
6) My Husband's Cousin: BB Dixit (Sanju) (S/o Bassappa) Residing at Mysore
7) My Husband's Uncle: BP Harish
All 1 to 5 & 7 Residing at Kattemadu Village
Kattemadu Post, Madikeri Taluk
Coorg District
Coorg-571201
8) My Husband's Aunt: Radha
9) My Husband's Cousin: Shruthi Jashwanth (D/o Radha Nanda Kumar)
10) My Husband's Aunt: Bhagirathi Kariappa Residing at Bangalore
8 and 9 Residing at # 307, Dattatri Niliya 1st stage, 5th cross, Gayathri Puram, Ward No: 39, Mysore - 570019.
I, Advika Kavya Parlakoti W/o Koushik M.S., reside at the said above address with my Parents and my Son currently. I got married to Koushik M.S. on 19/01/2020. My wedding was arranged by my Parents in a very respectful manner, following all the customs and rituals of the Hindu tradition at Raitha Bhavan, Kushalnagar, Kodagu.
After my Marriage I was residing in my matrimonial home (Address: No. 1154, 2nd Cross, Paduvana Road, 4th Stage, T.K. Layout, Kuvempunagar, Mysore-570023) with my Husband and my Mother-in-Law. I came my Parents home in the Last week of March 2022.
I have got one Son aged 2 Yrs. I am pursuing my Education.
Sir/Madam, my wedding was arranged by my Parents in a very respectful manner, Our Engagement was held at Kalyani Hotel at Mysore and all the expenses was borne by my Parents only. After the Engagement my Husband and my Mother-in-Law and all their relatives (Above mentioned) Started demanding for conducting our marriage in a Splendor way by giving Gold Ornaments and Silver Items and organizing the marriage in a Grand Scale and having no other option my parents had conduct our marriage in accordance to their demands for which my parents had to borrow loans.
Sir/Madam, After my Marriage my Husband and my Mother-in- Law took care of me well for about 4 months and later my Husband and my Mother-in-Law have been Torturing, Abusing, and Harassing me Physically, Verbally and Mentally. They always showed their Dominance on me and further they would tell me that I had to listen and live my life according to what they say. My Husband is a Rude, Dominating, Manipulative Person and he never showed respect or love towards me as a Husband and he never Hesitated to Degrade me and Abuse me with Vulgar words.
My Husband Drinks and Physically Hits me and uses Vulgar Words at home.
My Husband doesn't fulfill his Duties/Responsibilities as a Husband. He doesn't allow me to call my Parents and even my Parents should not call me and he doesn't allow me to go to my Parents home and doesn't allow my parents to visit me.
My Mother-in-Law brain washes my Husband and my Husband listening to her words and without knowing the fact or without allowing me to speak he hits me and scolds me with very bad words. He would always live in accordance to his mother's words and would not come and was avoiding me very often. Moreover my mother-in-law and my husband and my husband's cousins (above all) are very superstitious and they started to perform Agora Bali and other Black Magic Poojas against me so that I, myself go out of the house within 48 days and when I asked as to why they were doing liken this they told me that I had not brought sufficient money at the time of my marriage and they wanted more money, jewellery a Royal Enfield Bike and a immovable property at Bangalore. But, my parents had given Rs.10 Lakhs even after my marriage as per their demands to start his business. But also they were not satisfied with this and they wanted more money. They told me that they were performing the Black Magic so that I go out of the house and my Husband could marry another women who would get more money and property.
Sir/Madam, as my Father-in-Law has expired my Husband and my mother-in-law seek support from My Husband's Uncle: Keshava for every thing and my Husband's Uncle Keshava who is taking care of my husband's coffee plantation would always degrade me and speak to me and he would always insult me saying that I have not brought sufficient money at the time of marriage and I am not fit for their family and would demand me to ask my parents for more money.
My Husband's Aunt: Bhagyavathi (W/o Keshava) would support and take my Mother-in-Law to places to meet the astrologists with cruel intentions that I go out of their family alive or dead and was always taunting me for my height and was saying that I am not a good pair for my husband and was always searching for bride for my husband even I was there in front of them.
My Husband's Cousin: Lavi Subhaiah (S/o Keshava) and My Husband's Cousin: Likith Somaiah (S/o Keshava) would support my Husband and they would force to eat pork and consume Alcohol when I refuse my Husband's cousin would make fun of me and harass me they would indirectly taunt my husband and provoke my husband to hit me and my husband listening to them he would abuse me and hit me in front of everyone.
My Husband's Cousin: BB Dixit (Sanju) was staying with us in our Matrimonial home and he would always interfere in personal matters and would always tell that I was not correct for my Husband and he would look out for another girl for my Husband and his father (My Husband's Uncle) BP Bassappa supported all these when I complained these issue about his son to him and he would in turn scold me and told me that I had to adjust and go further he would torture me saying that I had not get sufficient money from my parents home at the time of wedding, so I could not speak anything which related to his family
My Husband's Uncle BP Harish would always call my Mother-in- Law and would give her ideas to get me separated as he has two daughters and my Husband chose me upon them, so Mr. Harish had always bad impression about me.
My Husband's Aunt: Radha and My Husband's Cousin: Shruthi Jashwanth would also take my Mother-in-Law to Black Magicians at Mysore and performed Black Magic on me with bad intentions for illegal gains, and giving ill ideas to my mother in law. They were coming to my husband's place and through call they were always taunting me and torturing me for not bring house in Bangalore.
My Husband's Aunt: Bhagirathi Kariappa was forcing my husband to consult lawyers so that he could me divorce as soon as possible as her daughter was a divorcee and when I asked her as to why she was doing this she would abuse me a lot with filthy words.
When I was pregnant my Husband and my Mother-in-Law forced me to get aborted my pregnancy and tortured me to take prevention tablet for abortion later I did not accept that and all his family member also told that it was not the right thing and later my husband and my mother-in-law forced me to go to my parents house, as I did not accept it they torture by not giving me sufficient food and they gave me contaminated food and in the view to protect my child and myself I had no other option other than coming to my parents home When I delivered my son they visited me and my son only one in the Hospital and after lapse of 4 months my Husband and my Mother-in-Law called me and asked me to come back home (Matrimonial home) so on 07/02/2022 I, my son along with my parents went to my Matrimonial home and at that time the door was Locked (Matrimonial home) and I called them up they asked me to wait in the mean time I had a duplicate key with me so I tried opening but I could not open the door and later in called my husband and informed him about this and my husband sent a labour to open the key and we went inside. From that time for about 1½ month we were together and later they started forcing me to ask my parents for more money (Additional Rs 10 Lakhs and a immovable property) and they knew that my Father is running a Stationary shop and he cannot afford so much of money every time they demanded and I told that my father cannot afford so much of money and from that time they did not provide me sufficient food and they gave me contaminated food and they knew very well I was breast feeding my son at that time and due to this I became very weak and sick and I had to be admitted at Apollo Hospital at Mysore. In the Hospital itself my Husband and my Mother-in-Law told me on my face that they don't want me and my son and they forced me to go to my parents home and having no other option I went back to my Parents home. Now my Husband and my Mother-in- Law are demanding for a 30 X 40 feet immovable property at Kumara swamy Layout and Cash of Rs 10 Lakhs and a Royal Enfield Bike and only then they would allow me and my son inside my matrimonial home.
Further I would also want to keep you informed that they have Registered a Case against me Case No: CC 10132/2022 at 3rd JMFC at Mysore on the grounds that I had broke opened key to enter into the house when I came to my matrimonial home upon their guidance with my son and my parents.
Sir/Madam, I would like to keep you informed that I have lodged a Matrimonial case under restitution of Conjugal Rights against my Husband Case No: MC 799/2022 which is pending before The Family Court Bangalore.
Sir/Madam, I also want to keep you informed that all that Jewellery which was given to me at the time of my Marriage by my parents is still with my Mother-in-Law and my Husband and I also want to keep you informed that my Parents have spent about 25 Lakhs alone for my Marriage Expense apart from this my parents have given jewellery and silk sarees to me and jewellery to my Husband and Cloths to my Husband and my Mother-in-Law.
All my belongings and my jewellery and other essential things are in the custody of my Husband and my Mother-in-Law.
When my husband had come to Bangalore for counseling to Vanitha sahaya vani ask me for mutual Divorce as I denied for Divorce he came out side when I was about take auto with my mom and my son, my husband and his friend came in car my husband punched me for 5 to 6 times from his hand to my stomach. As I couldn't bear the pain I went to private hospital and took medication and then again went to KC General hospital for further treatment. Basavanagudi police had come to KC General for taking statement. I am attaching all the documents for your reference.
I have tried my level best to co-operate and save my matrimony even after my husband and in-laws had crossed the limits of torturing me for the sake of my future, my reputation, my family's reputation, and the future of our son
I'm mentally traumatized and devastated by whatever has been happening.
My health has been deteriorated due to mental stress and trauma.
if anything happens to me or my son or and my parents, my husband & my mother-in-law will be solely responsible.
I request you to Kindly Speak/Council with them & Solve the Issues what I am facing.
I request you to Kindly provide me, my son and my parents Protection because once they come to know that I have lodged a Complaint against them they may Trouble me, my son and my parents
I further request you to Kindly keep my Husband & his Family Informed about this Complaint & these Issues.
I Humbly request you to kindly look into this matter and render Justice to me.
Husband's Name: Koushik M.S. MOB No: 9449578377 Husband's Occupation: Business Man
Mother-in-Law's Name: Kamalakshi B.P. MOB No: 9449255198
MY Husband's Residential Address:: No. 1154, 2nd Cross, Paduvana Road, 4th Stage, T.K. Layout, Kuvempunagar, Mysore - 570023
- My Husband's Uncle: Keshava B.P. -Mob: 9480219898
3) My Husband's Cousin: Lavi Subhaiah (S/o Keshava B.P.) Mob: 8277132288
4) My Husband's Cousin: Likith Somaiah (S/o Keshava B.P.) Mob: 7760470607
5) My Husband's Uncle: BP Bassappa - Mob: 9731258572
6) My Husband's Cousin: B B Dixit (Sanju) (S/o Bassappa) Mob: 9535295612 Residing at Mysore
7) My Husband's Uncle: BP Harish - Mob:9449374671
All 1 to 7 Residing at
Kattemadu Village Kattemadu Post,
Madikeri Taluk
Coorg District Coorg-571201
8) My Husband's Aunt: Radha - Mob: 9741765044
9) My Husband's Cousin: Shruthi Jashwanth -Mob: 9008511230
10) My Husband's Aunt: Bhagirathi Kariappa -Mob: 9449051929 Thanking You,
Yours Faithfully
Sd/-
(Advika Kavya Parlakoti)”
The complaint did not stop at dragging in, the husband or mother- in-law, it dragged in every member of the family or even outsiders who did not reside with the family. The police after investigation file a charge sheet dropping every other member of the family from the array of accused and retain only the husband and the mother-in- law, as accused nos. 1 and 2. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column number 17 reads as follows:
A perusal at the complaint would indicate that it is a glorified version of a well-drafted complaint against every member of the family or even outsiders. The glorification is restricted when the police file charge sheet only against accused Nos.1 and 2. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are alleged of several acts of demand of dowry. The husband demanding Royal Enfield bike and a site and when the same did not meet their demand, the accused are said to have tortured the complainant.
9. A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet, at the first blush, would indicate certain offences against the accused, particularly against the husband. But if the backdrop of the registration of the complaint and the filing of the charge sheet is seen, it would undoubtedly mean that the wife has registered the complaint only to arm twist the husband in many ways, as there are several proceedings between the husband and the wife. First, when the wife travels to Mysore to her parental house for delivery, the husband registers a case in M.C.No.78 of 2022, barely after 2 years of marriage. Later, the wife never turns up, but she is said to have registered a proceeding in Bangalore, seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in M.C.No.799 of 2022. During the pendency of the proceedings for the restitution of conjugal rights, it transpires that the 2nd respondent went to enter the house of the petitioners and when they were not in the house she broke open the house and other things. A proceeding against the wife is registered by these petitioners for certain offences which is pending before the concerned Court. The wife then registers a petition invoking the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is still pending consideration.
10. With all these proceedings pending, the wife, who is the complainant comes to know that the parents are wanting to get the husband married to someone else. It is then a suit is instituted by the wife seeking an injunctory order that the husband should not get married to anyone else in O.S.No.199 of 2023. After all these efforts comes the impugned complaint. The complaint was sought to be registered on 20-08-2023. What has happened after the said date of bringing the complaint before the jurisdictional police is that the police sought to resolve the dispute in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of LALITA KUMARI supra. The 1st petitioner appears before the police station, renders his statement along with his advocate and again was asked to come to conciliation on 28-08-2023. The 1st petitioner visits the police station and talks of conciliation moved forward. The petitioner then appeared before the conciliation officer of Mahila Sahayavani which was referred to by the Basavanagudi police station. Here again the talks of conciliation fail, it is then the crime comes to be registered after 23 days of the date on which the complainant wanted to register the complaint.
11. With all these proceedings, the complaint and the charge sheet not making out such offences that would become punishable under Section 498A or 323 of the IPC, permitting further proceedings would run foul of the judgments of the Apex Court, plethora of them rendered from time to time, two of which, I deem it appropriate to notice.
11.1 . The Apex Court in the case of P.V. KRISHNABHAT v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2025 SCC OnLine SC 484) , has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
14. Regarding the husband, it is evident that the allegations against him are similarly vague and unsubstantiated. The complainant has made generalized accusations without furnishing specific instances of misconduct. No specific allegations and neither any material have come on record to show a prima facie commission of the alleged offences of cruelty and dowry demand. The couple had a love marriage and experienced a blissful relationship during the initial years of their marriage, as is admitted on record. This, coupled with the lack of material evidence to support the allegations, leads to the conclusion that no prima facie case of cruelty or dowry demand is made out against the husband as well. Criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue in the absence of sufficient evidence to prima facie establish the commission of an offense.
15. Further, as is evident from the record, the marriage between the parties has been dissolved, with categorical findings regarding cruelty meted out by the complainant against the appellant-husband. The allegations made in the criminal complaint, regarding dowry demand, cruelty, and harassment have all been held to be baseless, false and frivolous. Though, these are separate proceedings, but findings regarding the truth and veracity of such serious allegations, as have been made by the complainant herein, become relevant in order to do justice and avoid misuse of criminal justice system. The Family Court has made categorical findings to hold that the allegations are false and nothing has been produced to or prove any merit in the allegations. Even in the criminal proceedings impugned before us, nothing has come on record to show commission of these alleged acts, even on a prima facie analysis. Once it has been held that there is no merit or truthfulness to the allegations made, then criminal proceedings on the very same allegations cannot be allowed to continue and propagate misuse of the criminal justice system.
16. Criminal law should not be used as a tool for harassment or vendetta. The allegations in a criminal complaint must be scrutinized with care to ensure that they disclose a prima facie case before subjecting individuals to the rigors of a criminal trial. The cases involving allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC and the DP Act often require a careful and cautious approach to prevent misuse of the law. While the provisions are intended to protect women from cruelty and dowry harassment, they should not be used to settle personal scores or pursue ulterior motives.
17. In the present case, the allegations against the appellants were devoid of merit, manifestly frivolous and fail to disclose a prima facie case. The continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in a miscarriage of justice.
18. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act against all the appellants are quashed.”
11.2. The Apex Court in the case of MARAM NIRMALA v. STATE OF TELANGANA (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2913) , has held as follows:
….. ….. …..
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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 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
30. 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 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
31. 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
34. 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)
18. 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.”
11.3. The Apex Court in the case of BELIDE SWAGATH KUMAR v. STATE OF TELANGANA (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2890) , has held as follows:
“….. ….. …..
18. Section 498A of the IPC deals with offences committed by the husband or relatives of the husband subjecting cruelty towards the wife. The said provision reads as under:
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
19. Further, Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act talk about the penalty for giving or taking or demanding a dowry.
“3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.— (1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more.
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,—
(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;
(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act:
Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.
4. Penalty for demanding dowry.— If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.”
20. An offence is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC when a husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty, which may result in imprisonment for a term extending up to three years and a fine. The Explanation under Section 498A of the IPC defines “cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC to mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b). The first limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC states that “cruelty” means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that cruelty means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Further, clause (b) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC states that cruelty would also include harassment of the woman where such harassment is to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
21. Further, Section 3 of the DP Act deals with the penalty for giving or taking dowry. It states that any person who engages in giving, taking, or abetting the exchange of dowry, shall face a punishment of imprisonment for a minimum of five years and a fine of not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the dowry, whichever is greater. Section 4 of the DP Act talks of penalty for demanding dowry. It states that any person demanding dowry directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardians of a bride or bridegroom shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
22. The issue for consideration is whether, given the facts and circumstances of the case and after examining the FIR and the Complaint Case, the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings against the appellants arising out of FIR No. 29 of 2022 dated 27.01.2022 and the Complaint Case No. 1067 of 2022 under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.
23. Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases where the allegations have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law. The allegations put forth by the complainant- respondent No. 2 have been considered by us. In our view, they reflect the daily wear and tear of marriage and can, in no way, be categorised as cruelty. The act of the accused-appellant of sending money back to his family members cannot be misconstrued in a way that leads to a criminal prosecution. The allegation that the accused- appellant forced the complainant-respondent No. 2 to maintain an excel sheet of all the expenses, even if taken on the face value, cannot come under the definition of cruelty. The monetary and financial dominance of the accused-appellant, as alleged by the complainant- respondent No. 2, cannot qualify as an instance of cruelty, especially in the absence of any tangible mental or physical harm caused. The said situation is a mirror reflection of the Indian society where men of the households often try to dominate and take charge of the finances of the women but criminal litigation cannot become a gateway or a tool to settle scores and pursue personal vendettas. Furthermore, the other allegations of the complainant-respondent No. 2 such as lack of care on the part of the husband-the accused-appellant during pregnancy and postpartum and constant taunts about her after-birth weight, if accepted prima facie, at best reflect poorly upon the character of the accused-appellant but the same cannot amount to cruelty so as to make him suffer through the process of litigation.
24. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the complainant-respondent No. 2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that the husband and his family along with the accused-appellant herein mentally harassed her with a demand of dowry, the complainant-respondent No. 2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. Although she has alleged that an amount totalling to Rupees One Crore was demanded by the accused-appellant and his family members, the complainant- respondent No. 2 has failed to put forth any evidence or material on record to elaborate or substantiate the same. Furthermore, the complainant-respondent No. 2 has failed to impress the court as to how the said alleged harassment has caused her any injury, mental or physical. There has been no remote or proximate act or omission attributed to the accused-appellant that implicates him or assigns him any specific role in the said FIR for the offence of 498A of the IPC. Merely stating that the accused-appellant has mentally harassed the complainant-respondent No. 2 with respect to a demand of dowry does not fulfil the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC especially in the face of absence of any cogent material or evidence on record to substantiate the said allegations. The term “cruelty” cannot be established without specific instances. The tendency of invoking these sections, without mentioning any specific details, weakens the case of prosecution and casts serious aspersions on the viability of the version of the complainant. Therefore, this Court cannot ignore the missing specifics in an FIR which is the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State. In such cases involving allegations of cruelty and harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against perpetrators in specific terms to involve such perpetrators into the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them and therefore mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such persons would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings.
25. In this regard, it would be apposite to rely on the judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (“Bhajan Lal”) with particular reference to paragraph 102 therein, where this Court observed:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
26. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial dictum, we find that none of the offences alleged against the accused-appellant herein is made out. In fact, we find that the allegations of cruelty, mental harassment and voluntarily causing hurt against the accused-appellant herein have been made with a mala-fide intent with vague and general allegations and therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and particularly sub-paragraphs (1) and (7) of paragraph 102, extracted above, squarely apply to the facts of these cases. It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution emanating from the FIR and consequent Complaint Case No. 1067 of 2022 to continue.
27. Furthermore, at this juncture, we find it appropriate to quote the judgment of this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 wherein it was observed:
“27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific 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
30. 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-A IPC 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 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.
31. 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.”.”
(Emphasis supplied in each instance)
In the light of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court, as quoted supra, permitting further proceedings against the petitioners would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.19305 of 2024 pending on the file of XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru qua the petitioners, stand quashed.
Pending application if any, also stand disposed, as a consequence.