1. Accused persons 1 to 3 in C.C.5/2025 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kollam, arising out of crime No.719/2024 of Kollam West Police station filed this Crl.M.C under Section 528 BNSS praying for quashing all further proceedings against them. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 85, 316(2) and 115(2) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The prosecution case is that the 1st accused, being the husband of the de facto complainant and accused persons 2 and 3 being his parents, subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty both physically and mentally, demanding more dowry, voluntarily caused hurt to her, appropriated her gold and money and thereby they are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, even if the entire allegations levelled against the petitioners as such are believed, the same will not constitute any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Further, according to the learned counsel, petitioners 2 and 3 who are aged parents of the 1st petitioner are falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioners.

4. In Annexure-A1 complaint and in the 161 Cr.P.C statement given by the de facto complainant, it is alleged that the 1st petitioner married her on 9.1.2020 at the Little Flower Church, Ernakulam. In connection with the marriage, she was given a Benz car, 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments, diamond worth Rs.30,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,35,58,884/- through bank transactions and a further sum of Rs.21,00,000/- by cash. On the date of marriage itself, the 1st petitioner received her entire gold ornaments. The petitioners 1 and 3 subjected her to cruelty alleging that the sisters of the 1st accused were given Rs.10,00,00,000/- as dowry and the said dowry was not received from the family of the de facto complainant.

5. In Annexure-A1 complaint it is also alleged that a total sum of Rs.71,00,000/- from various joint accounts was transferred by the 1st accused into his personal account, without the knowledge and consent of the de facto complainant. As per Ext.A1 complaint, all the accused persons subjected her to cruelty, both physically and mentally. It was further alleged that, while the de facto complainant was staying in her residence in connection with the delivery, the petitioners along with other relatives came there on 5.4.2023 and directed her to give authorization in favour of the 1st accused, to enable him to withdraw the amount deposited in their joint names. Further, all the accused persons made it clear that in case the above demand was not complied, the 1st accused will not continue the marital relationship with her.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the above allegations levelled against the petitioners are not sufficient to constitute the offences as alleged. Therefore, it was argued that the petitioners are entitled to get an order quashing the proceedings against them. In support of the above argument, the learned counsel has relied upon the decisions in Sushila and Ors. v. State of U.P. And Ors., MANU/SC/0506/2025, Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Ors. v. State of Telangana and Ors., (2025) 3 SCC 735 and Kahkashan Kausar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR 2022 SC 820.

7. In the decision in Sushila (supra), the Apex Court held that the relatives of the husband should not be implicated in the case without specific allegations or evidence. In the above decision the court further observed that, if the continuation of the trial amounts to vexatious prosecution and abuse of the legal process, the same is sufficient to quash the proceedings.

8. In the decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra), the Apex Court held that mere naming of family members without specific allegations of active involvement should be nipped in the bud. The Court further observed that Section 498A IPC is meant to curb cruelty against women and its misuse for personal vendetta or to implicate relatives without evidence or vague allegations is unsustainable.

9. In Kahkashan Kausar (supra) the Apex Court observed that if there is no specific or distinct allegations and there are only general and omnibus allegations, it is not sufficient to make out a prima facie case and in such cases, the prosecution will be an abuse of the process of the Court.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant would submit that the allegations in Annexure-A1 are sufficient enough to constitute the offences under Sections 85, 316(2) and 152 of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition. In support of the above argument, the learned counsel has relied upon the decisions in Kurian K.C. @ Sunny v. State of Kerala, 2024 KHC 7370, Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi and Others, 2007 (3) KHC 995, Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokamekar v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2019 KHC 6154, NDA Securities Ltd., v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 KHC 6473. and Ramdas and Others v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 KHC 3044.

11. In the decision in Kurian K.C. @ Sunny (supra), this Court held that if the allegations levelled against the accused makes out a prima facie case, continuation of prosecution is justified. In Pratibha (supra), the Apex Court held that prima facie offence must be assessed on the basis of the FIR alone for quashing the proceedings and the delay in filing the FIR cannot be taken into consideration for the aforesaid purpose. The Apex Court further emphasized that, powers under Sections 482 Cr.P.C should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases.

12. In the decision in Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokamekar (supra), the Apex Court held that at the stage of taking cognizance of issuing summons the Magistrate is not required to examine the merits or potential for conviction, but only whether a prima facie case is made out. It was further observed that criminal complaints cannot be quashed merely because the allegations may appear civil, if the ingredients of the offence are prima facie disclosed. In the decision in NDA Securities Ltd. (supra), the Supreme court held that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be used to conduct a mini trial. In Ramdas (supra), the Apex court held that mere delay in lodging the FIR is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case. In such circumstances, the question is whether the delay is properly explained.

13. In short, the point to be considered is whether the allegations against the petitioners prima facie makes out the offences as alleged. In the instant case, there are specific allegations to the effect that the accused persons subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty, both physically and mentally and appropriated her gold and money. There is a specific allegation that the 1st accused transferred a sum of Rs.71,00,000/- from the joint account of the de facto complainant and the 1st accused into his personal account, without the knowledge and consent of the de facto complainant. There is also a specific allegation that on 5.4.2023, the petitioners went to the residence of the de facto complainant and directed her to give authorization in favour of the 1st accused, to enable him to withdraw the amount deposited in their joint names. Further, all the accused persons made it clear that in case the above demand was not complied, the 1st accused will not continue the marital relationship with her.

14. The allegation levelled against the petitioners that they have subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty, both physically and mentally and that on 5.4.2023 they intimidated to abandon the de facto complainant that in case authorization is not given in favour of the 1st petitioner to withdraw the amounts deposited by her, prima facie amounts to cruelty as defined in Explanation '(b)' to Section 498-A IPC. The above demand for authorization to withdraw the amounts deposited by her prima facie amounts to demand of dowry. Further, the allegation that the petitioners appropriated her gold ornaments and that the 1st accused transferred Rs.71,00,000/- from the joint account into his personal account without the consent of the de facto complainant, also prima facie amounts to the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners is liable to be rejected.

                  In the result, this Crl.M.C stands dismissed.