Karnataka High Court
Mr G Silambu Selvan vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3114 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. MR.G.SILAMBU SELVAN
S/O MR.M. GURUSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
2. MRS.S.THAILESHWARI
W/O MR.G.SILAMBU SELVAN,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
BOTH RESIDEDNTS OF
NO.757/1F,
1ST CROSS, 2ND STAGE,
C.F.T.R.I. LAYOUT,
Digitally signed AMRITANANDAMAYI COLLEGE ROAD,
by SANJEEVINI 2ND STAGE, BOGADI,
J KARISHETTY
Location: High MYSURU - 570 026.
Court of
Karnataka
3. MRS.S.VENMATHI
W/O MR. SRINIVASAN,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.11/15,
INDIRA NAGAR, SELVAPURAM,
KOMARAPALYAM POST,
COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU - 641 026.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. I.S PRAMOD CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WOMEN POLICE,
MYSURU CITY, THROUGH
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MRS. R.V. HARSHITA
W/O MR. RAGHUL SELVAN,
D/O MR. R.T. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.757/1F,
C.F.T.R.I. 2ND STAGE,
BOGADI,
MYSURU - 570 026
(AS CLAIMED IN THE F.I.R.)
ALSO AT RAJANABELAGUDI VILLAGE,
KANAGAL POST,
PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI JAYANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.13/2024 REGISTERED WITH
RESPONDENT NO.1 WOMEN POLICE STATION, MYSURU FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.
3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961, NOW PENDING
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND
J.M.F.C., AT MYSURU AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
(ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 4 RESPECTIVELY HEREIN).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners/accused nos.2, 3 and 4 are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No. 13 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 and 149 of the IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Heard Sri I. S. Pramod Chandra, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Jayanth Kumar M, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
-4-NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. The accused no. 1 Rahul Selvam and the complainant get married on 15-03-2021. The relationship between accused No.1 and the complainant appears to have floundered. On floundering of the relationship, the complainant registers a complaint before the jurisdictional police, which becomes a crime in Crime No. 13 of 2024 for the afore-quoted offences.
The registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
4. The relationship between the parties is that, the 2nd respondent is the complainant. The accused no. 2 is the father-
in-law, accused No.3 is mother-in-law and accused No.4 is the grandmother of the accused no. 1.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that a perusal at the complaint would indicate that all the offences are against the accused no.1, the husband, while there is nothing against these petitioners that would become the ingredients of Section 498A, 504 or 506 of the IPC. He would submit that accused no. 4 who is a resident at Coimbatore and now 74 years old is also -5- NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR dragged into these proceedings, only on the score that she has instigated the husband/accused No.1 to demand money. The learned counsel submits that the allegations against all the petitioners is instigation for commission of certain acts at the hands of the husband/accused No.1.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant would vehemently contend that the complaint is in detail. It pins down every overt act committed by every person and therefore, investigation in the least in the case at hand, must be permitted. The learned counsel would seek dismissal of the petition.
7. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent would also submit that the matter is still at the stage of investigation and if permitted, the jurisdictional police would continue the investigation and may be a 'B' report could also be filed against these petitioners.
Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the registration of the crime.
-6-NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The relationship between the parties is what is narrated hereinabove. The husband/accused No.1 is not before the Court. The relationship between the husband and the complainant turned sour 2 years after marriage and several proceedings galore against each other. One such proceeding is the subject complaint. A complaint comes to be registered before the jurisdictional police by the 2nd respondent/complainant, which becomes a crime in Crime No. 13 of 2024. Since the entire issue has now sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows:
"ರವ ೆ
ಆರ ಕ ೕ ಕರು.
ಮ ಾ ೕ ಾ ೆ.
ಲಷ ಹ ಾ, ೖಸೂರು.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
ರವ ಂದ
%&ೕಮ' ಹ()ತ ಆ + ೨೬ ವಷ)
.ೋಂ /ಾಘ1 2ೆಲ3ಂ, ಗೃ 6
7ಾಸ: #757/1 ಎ9.:ಎ ಆ ಐ
೨<ೆ ಹಂತ, =ೋ ಾ>,
ೖಸೂರು.
=ೈ1 ಸಂ?ೆ@: 8867563624
2ಾ3A,
+ಷಯ : ನನD ಪ' /ಾಘ1 2ೆಲ3ಂ, ನಮF Gಾವ Hಲಂಬು 2ೆಲ3ಂ ನನD ಅKೆL Kೈ ೇಶ3 Nಾಗು ನನD ಪ'ಯ ಅOP 7ೆಣF' ರವರುಗಳS NೆTUನ ವರದV ೆ ತರುವಂKೆ ನನ ೆ Wರುಕುಳ ೕಡು'LದುY Nಾಗು ನನD ಪ' ಅ<ೈಸZ)ಕ ೈಂZಕ W&[ ನ\ೆಸುವಂKೆ ನನ ೆ Wರುಕುಳ ೕಡು'Lರುವ ಬ ೆ] ದೂರು.
***
ಈ ೕಲ ಂಡ +ಷಯ.ೆ ಸಂಬಂ_HದಂKೆ ತಮF ಈ ಮೂಲಕ
+ನಂ'H.ೊಳS`ವabೇ<ೆಂದ/ೆ ನನD ಗಂಡನ ಮ<ೆಯವರು ತಮF ಸಂಬಂ>ಕರ ಕ\ೆcಂದ ನನDನುD +7ಾಹ7ಾಗಲು ನನD ತಂbೆಯ ಮ<ೆ ೆ ಬಂದು +7ಾಹದ ಕು ತು GಾತುಕKೆ Gಾd, GಾತುಕKೆ ಸಂದಭ)ದ ನನD ಗಂಡ ೆ 500 ಾ&ಂ TನD, 3 .ೆ O =ೆf` 2ಾGಾನುಗಳS Nಾಗು ವ/ೋಪgಾರ7ಾZ Nೊಸ .ಾರು .ೊಳ`ಲು 10,00.000/- ನಗದು ಮದು7ೆ ಮತುL %UKಾಥ).ೆ ನನD ಗಂಡ ೆ ಬiೆj ಮತುL ಇತ/ೆ ಖT) ಾZ ರೂ 2,00.000/- ಗಳನೂD ವರದV ೆ GಾತುಕKೆ Gಾd, +ಜೃಂಬ ೆcಂದ ನನD ಗಂಡನ ಮ<ೆಯವರ ಇgೆUಯಂKೆ %UKಾಥ) ಮತುL +7ಾಹವನುD Gಾd.ೊಡುವಂKೆ =ೇd.ೆಯನುD Gಾdದ ೕ/ೆ ೆ ><ಾಂಕ :
24/01/2021 ರಂದು /ಾnೇಂದ& ಕ ಾ@ಣ ಮಂಟಪ ೖಸೂರು ಇ ಗುರು ಯರ ಸಮ ಮ ದ ಅದೂY pಾZ +ಜೃಂಬ ೆcಂದ %UKಾಥ) .ಾಯ)ಕ&ಮವನುD Gಾd.ೊqjದುY %UKಾಥ)ದ ಸಮಯದ ನನD ಗಂಡ ೆ 30 ಾ&ಂ TನDದ ಸರ, 10 ಾ&ಂ ಉಂಗುರ 30 ಾ&ಂ TನDದ =ೆ&ೕ¸ÉèÃs ಅನುD .ೊಟುj, ನನD ಗಂಡನ ಮ<ೆಯವರ ಇgೆUಯಂKೆ %UKಾಥ)ದ .ಾಯ)ಕ&ಮವನುD ನಮF ಮ<ೆಯವರು ನ\ೆH.ೊqjರುKಾL/ೆ ಒಟುj ಎಲ ಖಚು) 2ೇ ರೂ 50.00,000/- ಗಳ ೕ ಾZರುತLbೆ ಇದನುD ನನD ತಂbೆಯವ/ೇ 2ಾಲ 2ೋಲ Gಾd ಭ HರುKಾL/ೆ ಮತುL ನನD Kಾತನ Nೆಸ ನ ದY : pಾಪಟjಣದ 7ೇಶನ ನನD Nೆಸ ೆ ಬ/ೆದು .ೊqjರುKಾL/ೆ ಮದು7ೆpಾದ ನಂತರ ನನDನುD ನನD ಗಂಡನ ಮ<ೆ ೆ ಕ/ೆದು.ೊಂಡು -8- NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR NೋZರುKಾL/ೆ ಮದು7ೆ ಆದ ಸ3ಲv >ನಗಳ ನಂತರ ನನD Gಾವ ಅKೆL ಮತುL ನನD ಪ'ಯ ಅOP ರವರುಗಳS ಇನುD NೆTUನ ವರದV ೆ ತರುವಂKೆ :ೕdಸಲು ಶುರುGಾdರುKಾL/ೆ Nಾಗು ಅವರ ತಂbೆ Kಾc ಅOP ಇಲ ಸಲದ ಸಬೂಬುಗಳನುD Nೇf.ೊಂಡು ನನDನುD ತುಚU7ಾZ ಂ>ಸುKಾL ನZಂತ =ೇ/ೆಯವಳನುD ಮದು7ೆ GಾdದY ನನD ಮಗ ೆ NೆTUನ ವರದV ೆಯನುD ೕಡುವ ಹುಡುZ Hಗು'ದYಳS Nಾಗು ನನD ಮಗ ಇಷjಪಟj ಹುಡುZpಾದ ಐಶ3ಯ)ಳನುD ಮದು7ೆ GಾdದY NೆTUನ ವರದV ೆಯನುD ತರು'LದYಳS ಎಂದು >ನ ತ@ ನನ ೆ ಂ2ೆಯನುD ೕಡುKಾL ಬಂ>ರುKಾL/ೆ.
ಇbೆಲವನುD ನಮF ಮ<ೆಯವ ೆ 'fHದ ಎ <ೊಂದು.ೊಳS`KಾL/ೋ ಎಂಬ ಉbೆYೕಶ>ಂದ ನನD ಗಂಡನ ಮತುL ಅವರ ಮ<ೆಯವರ GಾನHಕ Nಾಗು bೈ ಕ WರುಕುಳವನುD ಸ H.ೊಂಡು ಬಂ>ರುKೆLೕ<ೆ, ಮದು7ೆpಾದ >ನ>ಂದ ಇ ಯವ/ೆ+ಗೂ ನನD ಗಂಡ ಒಬx ಜ7ಾ=ಾY ಯುತ ಗಂಡ<ಾZ ನ\ೆದು.ೊಳ`bೆ, ನನD ಗಂಡ ನನD ಮದು7ೆpಾದ ನಂತರ ನನD ಗಂಡನ yೆ&ೕಯHpಾದ ಐಶ3ಯ) ೆz ಂ> ೆ gಾqಂ{ =ೈ1 ಸಂ?ೆ@ 8971333666 ದಲು ಅವಳ 2ೇ| ಬಂದ ಕೂಡ ೇ =ಾ} gÀÆ«ÄUÉ NೋZ ಅವ ೆz ಂ> ೆ ಗಂiೆಗಟj ೆ gಾqಂ{ ಅನುD GಾಡುತL ಬಂ>ರುKಾL/ೆ ಇದನುD ಗಮ Hದ <ಾನು ಇದರ ಬ ೆ] +gಾ Hbಾಗ ನನ ೆ bೈ ಕ7ಾZ ಹ ೆಯನುD Gಾd ನZಂತ ಅವ ೇ ನನ ೆ ಇಷj ¤£Àßö£ÀÄß «ªÁºÀªÁUÀ¢zÀÝ°è £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀÄRªÁVgÀÄwÛzÉÝ. CªÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ <ಾನು bೈ ಕ7ಾZ NೆಚುU ಸುಖ7ಾZರು'LzÉÝ. ಎಂದು ಅ7ಾಚ@ ಶಬYಗfಂದ ಂ>H ಸದ +gಾರವನುD ನಮF ಮ<ೆಯವjUÉ 'fಸದಂKೆ =ೆದ .ೆಯನುD NಾWರುKಾL/ೆ ಅಲbೆ ನಮF ಮದು7ೆpಾದ ಮೂರು 'ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ ಒಂದು >ನ ನನD ಗಂಡ ೆ ಐಶ3ಯ) ಬ/ೆ>ರುವ yೆ&ೕಮದ ಪತ&ಗಳS HW ದ ನಂತರ <ಾನು ಸದ +gಾರವನುD +gಾ ಸ ಾZ ನನD ಗಂಡ ಸದ ಐಶ3ಯ) ೆz ಂ> ೆ :&ೕ' Gಾಡು'Lರುವ ಬ ೆ], Nಾಗು ಸದ +gಾರವನುD .ೇfದY ನDನುD .ೊ ೆ GಾಡುವabಾZ =ೆಂW NಾW 2ಾಯುಸುKೆLೕ<ೆ ಎಂದು Wರುgಾಡು'LದYರು ಮತುL ನDನುD ಮ<ೆ ~ಟುj ಕಳS ಸುವabಾZ Nಾಗು ನನD ಅKೆLಯವರು ನನD ಮಗನನುD ಸದ +gಾರ7ಾZ ಪ&%Dಸುವ NಾZಲ ಅವರ ಇgೆ•ಯಂKೆ ೕನು ನ\ೆದು.ೊಂಡು Nೋಗ=ೇ.ೆಂದು ಸದ ಐಶ3ಯ)ಳ +gಾರ.ೆ ಸಂಬಂ_HದಂKೆ ನನD ಗಂಡನ ಮ<ೆಯವರು ನ<ೊDಂ> ೆ ಜಗಳ GಾdರುKಾL/ೆ, ಇbೆಲವನುD ಸ H.ೊಂಡು Nೋಗು'LದYರು ಸಹ ನನD ಗಂಡ ಮತುL ಐಶ3ಯ)ರವರು >ನಂಪ&' =ೈಲD gಾqಂ{ GಾಡುವaದನುD Hರುವa>ಲ, ಇbಾದ .ೆಲವa >ನಗಳ ನಂತರ ನನD ಗಂಡ ಮತುL ಐಶ3ಯ) ರವರು ೕ1 ನ yೆ&ೕಮದ ಸಂbೇಶ ಕಳS Hರುವaದು bೊ/ೆತ ೕ/ೆ ೆ <ಾನು ನನD ಗಂಡನನುD ಆಗಲು .ೇfbಾಗ ನನD ೕ ೆ ಹ ೆಯನುD GಾdರುKಾL/ೆ Nಾಗು ನನD ಅKೆL ಮತುL ನನD ಪ'ಯ ಅOPಯು ಸಹ ನನDನುD ಂ>ಸುKಾL/ೆ ನನD ತಂbೆಯ ಮ<ೆಯವರು ಕ/ೆ Gಾd ಸದ +gಾರವನುD 'fಸ ಾZ ನನD ಮ<ೆಯವರು /ಾO ಸಂ€ಾನ Gಾd ನನD ಗಂಡ ೆ ಬು>•7ಾದ Nೇf ಇನುD ಮುಂbೆ ೕ ೆ -9- NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR ನ\ೆದು.ೊಳS`ವa>ಲ ಎಂದು ನನD ಗಂಡ ಭರವ2ೆ ೕdದ ೕ/ೆ ೆ <ಾ<ಾಗ , ನನD ಮ<ೆಯವ/ಾಗ pಾವabೇ ದೂರನುD ೕಡbೆ ಗಂಡನ ಮ<ೆಯವ/ೊಂ> ೆ ಅನೂ@ನ@7ಾZ Oೕವನ ನ\ೆH.ೊಂಡು Nೋಗಲು ಪ&ಯತD ಪqjರುKೆLೕ<ೆ.
ನನD ಗಂಡ ಮತುL ಅವರ ಮ<ೆಯವರು ೕಡು'LದY ಎಲ WರುಕುಳಗಳನೂD ಸ H.ೊಂಡು Nೋಗು'LದYರು ಸಹ ಹಬx ಹ >ನಗಳ ನನD ತಂbೆಯ ಮ<ೆ ೆ ಕ/ೆದು.ೊಂಡು NೋಗುವಂKೆ .ೋ .ೊಂಡರು ನನDನು ತುಚ•7ಾZ ಂ>Hದ ನಂತರ ಹಬxದ >ನ ನನDನು ಕ/ೆದು.ೊಂಡು Nೋಗು7ಾಗ ನನD ಗಂಡ ನ<ೊDಂ> ೆ ೕನು Gಾತ<ಾಡು ಎಂದು NೇಳS7ಾಗ <ಾನು ನನD ಗಂಡ<ೊಂ> ೆ :&ೕ' ಮತುL ಸಲ ೆ ಇಂದ Gಾತ<ಾಡಲು Nೋbಾಗ ' ನ ೆ Gಾತ<ಾಡಲು ಬರುವa>ಲ ನನDನುD ನD Gಾ' ಂದ ಇಂyೆ& ಆಗು'Lಲ. ಎಂದು Nೇf ನನDನುD ಮಧ@ರ2ೆLಯ ೆ pಾವabೇ ಸ.ಾರಣ+ಲbೆ .ಾರನುD H ನನD ೕ ೆ bೈ ಕ7ಾZ ಹ ೆಯನುD Gಾd ಅ7ಾಚ@ ಶಬYಗfಂದ ಂ>HರುKಾL/ೆ, ನನD ತಂbೆಯ ಮ<ೆ ೆ ನನD ಗಂಡ ಬರುವ ಪ&' ಹಬx.ೆ ನನD ತಂbೆಯ ಮ<ೆಯವರು =ೆ ೆ =ಾಳSವ T<ಾDಭರಣವನುD ೕdದ Gಾತ& ಹಬx.ೆ ಬರುKೆLೕ<ೆ ಎಂದು =ೇd.ೆಯನುD ನನD ಗಂಡ ಇಡು'LದY ೕ/ೆ ೆ ನನD ಗಂಡ ೆ ಪ&' ಹಬxದಲೂ =ೆ ೆ =ಾಳSವ T<ಾDಭರಣವನುD ನನD ತಂbೆಯ ಮ<ೆಯವರು ೕಡುKಾL ಬಂ>ರುKಾL/ೆ ನನD ಗಂಡ ಒಬx ಅ%ೕಲ Tತ&ವನುD <ೋಡುವ ವ@ಸ pಾZದುY ಅ%ೕಲ Tತ&ಗಳ ಬರುವ Tತ&ದಂKೆ ಅ<ೈಸZ)ಕ ೈಂZಕ W&[ಯ KೊಡುಗುವಂKೆ ನನDನುD ಂHಸು'LದYರು . <ಾನು ಅದ.ೆ ಒಪv>ದY ನನD ೕ ೆ bೈ ಕ ಹ ೆಯನುD Gಾd TKಾ& ಂ2ೆಯನುD ೕಡುKಾL ಬಂ>ರುKಾL/ೆ.
<ಾನು ನನD ಗಂಡ<ೊಂ> ೆ ಹಬx.ೆ ನನD ತಂbೆಯ ಮ<ೆ ೆ Nೋbಾಗ ನನD ಪ' 7ಾyಾ ೖಸೂ Nೋಗಣ ಎಂದು ಜಗಳ Kೆ ೆ>ರುKಾL/ೆ <ಾನು 2 >ನ ಇರುವaದ.ೆ Kಾ<ೇ ಇ ೆ ಬಂ>ದುY ಎಂದು Nೇfbಾಗ ><ಾಂಕ 02.09.2022 ರಂದು =ೆf ೆ] 6:30 ಸಮಯದ ನನDನುD ದರದರ<ೆ ಎ ೆದು.ೊಂಡು =ಾ ಊ ೆ Nೋ ೋಣ ಎಂದು nೋ/ಾZ ಎ ೆbಾಗ qjಲು nಾ .ೆಳ ೆ ~ದುY ನನD ಬಲ .ಾಲು ಮು ತ7ಾZರುತLbೆ ತ ಣ ಅವರು ¤Ã£É nಾ ~bೆY ಎಂದು Nೇಳ=ೇಕು ಇಲ>ದY/ೆ ನDನುD ನD ತವರು ಮ<ೆಯ ೇ ~ಟುj NೋಗುKೆLೕ<ೆ ಎಂದು ನನDನುD Nೆದ ಸುKಾL/ೆ <ಾನು ಭಯ>ಂದ ಅವರು NೇfದಂKೆ ಎಲ ಗು <ಾ<ೆ .ಾಲು nಾ ~bೆY ಎಂದು ಸುಳS` NೇfರುKೆLೕ<ೆ ನಂತರ ಅವ/ೇ ನನDನುD ಮತುL ನನD KಾcಯನುD .ಾ ನ ಕು...ಾಲನಗರ.ೆ TWKೆ† ೆ ಕ/ೆದು .ೊಂಡು NೋZರುKಾL/ೆ (=ಾ ಾO ಆಸvKೆ& ) ಅ .ಾ ೆ ಶಸ‡ T.ೆKೆ† Gಾಡ=ೇಕು ಎಂದು 'fಸ ಾZ ನನDಪ' ನನDನುD ೖಸೂ ೆ ಕ/ೆದು.ೊಂಡು ಅ ೕ ೋ ಆಸvKೆ& ೆ bಾಖಲು GಾdರುKಾL/ೆ . ಅ ನನD ಬಲ ಾ ೆ ಶಸ‡ TWKೆ† ಆZ 4 >ನಗಳ .ಾಲ ಆಸvKೆ&ಯ ಒಳ /ೋZpಾZ bಾಖ ಾZರುKೆLೕ<ೆ. ಅ TWKೆ† ಸ pಾZ ಆಗದ ಕರಣ ನನD ಬಲ ಾ ೆ 2ೋಂಕು ಆZ bೊಡ‰bಾದ ಾpಾ ಆZ 'ಂಗಳSಗಟj ೆ <ೋವa 'ಂ>ರುKೆLೕ<ೆ . ನಂತರ ಆ 7ೈದ@ರನುD ಬದ H \ಾ|| ಅಜ‹ Nೆ ೆ‰ರವರ TWKೆ† ಯನುD ಮುಂದುವ/ೆಸ ಾZ ನನ ೆ 3 Œಾ ಶಸ‡ TWKೆ† ಆZರುತLbೆ. ಸ ಸುGಾರು 6 'ಂಗಳ .ಾಲ
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR NಾH ೆಯ [ೕ ಮಲZರುKೆLೕ<ೆ ಇ•ಾjದರೂ ಸಹ ನನD ಗಂಡ pಾವabೇ ೕ'pಾZ ನನD pಾವabೇ ತರದಲೂ ಉಪಚ ಸbೆ ಅಸ\ೆ‰ Kೋ HರುKಾL/ೆ ಆಸvKೆ&ಯ ಖಚು) 7ೆಚUಗಳS + cಂದ ಭ ಸಲvಡುತLbೆ .ಆ 7ೆಚUವನುD ಸಹ ಸುGಾರು 4 ಂದ 5 ಲ ದವ/ೆ ೆ ನನD ತಂbೆ Kಾc ಇಂದ ಪ\ೆ>ರುKಾL/ೆ. ಇವರ ಉbೆYೕಶ ನನDನುD ಸಂಪŽಣ)7ಾZ ಅಂಗ+ಕಲಳ<ಾDZ Gಾಡುವ ದುರುbೆYೕಶ>ಂದ ಸ pಾದ ಸಮಯ.ೆ TWKೆ† ೆ 7ೈದ@ರ ಬf ಕ/ೆದು.ೊಂಡು Nೋಗbೆ ಂ2ೆ ೕdರುKಾL/ೆ, ಈ ೕ' ನ\ೆದು.ೊಂdರುKಾL/ೆ. ಅಲbೆ <ಾನು ಅಂಗ+ಕ ಾಳದ ನನD ಗಂಡನ yೆ&ೕಯHpಾದ ಐಶ3ಯ) ೆz ಂ> ೆ +7ಾಹವನುD Gಾd.ೊಳS`ವ ದುರುbೆYೕಶವನುD Nೊಂ>ದYರು. <ಾನು ಶಸ‡ TWKೆ† ೆ ಒಳ ಾದ ನಂತರ ಅ<ೇಕ Œಾ ಅವ ೆz ಂ> ೆ ಸುKಾLdರುKಾL/ೆ ನನD ಗಂಡ ಮತುL ಅವರ ಮ<ೆಯವರು ಸ pಾZ ಶಸ‡ TWKೆ† Gಾdಸದ .ಾರಣ 2ೋಂಕು NೆgಾUದ .ಾರಣ ೖಸೂ ನ HೕKಾರಂಗ ಆಸvKೆ&ಯ ಮೂರು =ಾ ಶಸ‡ TWKೆ† ೆ ಒಳ ಾZbಾYಗಲೂ ಕೂಡ ನನDನು ನನD ಗಂಡ ಮತುL ಅವರ ಮ<ೆಯವರು <ೋd.ೊಳ`bೆ ನನDನುD ಲ) Kೆcಂದ ತುಚU7ಾZ ಂ>H ನನ ೆ GಾನHಕ7ಾZ Nಾಗು bೈ ಕ7ಾZ ಂ2ೆಯನುD ೕdರುKಾL/ೆ. ಶಸ‡ TWKೆ† ಒಳ ಾದ ನಂತರ ನನD •ೕಗ•ೇಮವನುD <ೋd.ೊಳ`ಲು ನನD Kಾc ನನD ಗಂಡನ ಮ<ೆ ೆ ಬಂbಾಗ ನನD ಗಂಡ ಮತುL ಅವರ ಮ<ೆಯವರು ನನD Kಾc •ಂ> ೆ ಜಗಳ Gಾd ಕಳS HರುKಾL/ೆ. ಮದು7ೆpಾದ >ನ>ಂದ ಇ ಯವ/ೆ ೆ ನನD ಗಂಡ ಮತುL ಅವರ ಮ<ೆಯವರು ನನD ತಂbೆಯ ಮ<ೆಯ NೆTUನ ವರದV ೆಯನುD ತರುವಂKೆ ಇಲ ಸಲದ ಸಬೂಬುಗಳನುD Nೇf.ೊಂಡು ನನ ೆ bೈ ಕ ಮತುL GಾನHಕ ಂ2ೆಯನುD ೕಡುKಾL ಬಂ>ರುKಾL/ೆ.
><ಾಂಕ 12/10/2023 ರಂದು ನನDನುD ಪŽnೆ ೆ ಬರುªÀAvÉ .ೊಯಮತೂL ೆ ನನD ಗಂಡ ಮತುL ಅವರ ಮ<ೆಯವರು Nೇfbಾಗ, <ಾನು GಾHಕ ರಜ >ನ7ಾದY ಂದ ಬರಲು 2ಾಧ@+ಲ7ೆಂದು Nಾಗು ಪŽnಾ .ಾಯ)ದ yಾ ೊ]ಳ`ಲು 2ಾಧ@+ಲ ಎಂದು 'fHbಾಗ,ಸದ +gಾರ7ಾZ ಇದು ನನD ಮ<ೆ, <ಾನು NೇfದಂKೆ .ೇಳ=ೇಕು ಇಲ7ಾದ/ೆ ಮ<ೆ~ಟುj Nೋಗು ಎಂದು ಎ ೆbಾdದರು, ಆಸಮಯದ ಒಸ ೆ ನನD ಬಳZನ Nೆ=ೆxರಳS KಾW ಾಯ7ಾZತುL ನನ ೆ ಭಯ7ಾZ =ಾ} gÀÆ«ÄUÉ NೋಗುವಂKಾcತು, Nೋದ ಸಂದಭ)ದ /ಾqï£À =ಾZಲು ಒ\ೆಯಲು ಯ'D¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ನನ ೆ ಾಬ pಾZ ನನD ¸ÉÆÃzÀgÀGಾವ (ರಂಗ2ಾ3A) ೆ ಕ/ೆ Gಾdbೆ ಅವರು ಉತL Hಲ7ೆಂದು ನನD ತಂbೆ ೆ ಕ/ೆ Gಾdbೆ,ಅವ ೆ ಾಬ pಾZ ನಮF 2ೋದರ Gಾವ (ರಂಗ2ಾ3A) ನಮF Tಕ ಪv (ರ+) ೆ ಕ/ೆGಾd +ಷಯವನುD 'fHದರು. ಕ/ೆGಾdದ ನಂತರ =ಾ' =ಾZಲು Kೆ ೆದ ತ ಣ ನನD ಗಂಡ ಕತುL ಮತುL =ೆ D ೆ .ೈcಂದ ಗು>Yದರು ತುಂ=ಾ <ೋ7ಾಯುL. ಆ ಸಮಯದ ಮKೆL ಎ ಕ/ೆGಾಡುKೆLೕ<ೋ ಎಂದು ಅವರ ಅOP (7ೆಣF' ) ನನD ಭುಜವನುD ಗqjpಾZ dದು.ೊಂdದYರು, Nಾಗು ನನD ಗಂಡ ೆ ಪ&gೋ>Hದರು ಅbಾದ ನಂತರ ನನD ಸNೋದರ (+nೇ}) ಪ ೕ•ೆ ೆ ಬಂದು
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR Tಕ ಪನ ಮ<ೆಯ ಉfದು .ೊಂdದುY 1/2 ಗಂiೆಯ ಒಳ ೆ ನಮF Gಾವ (ರಂಗ2ಾ3A) ನಮF Tಕ ಪv (ರ+) ಮತುL ನನD ತಮF +nೇ} ಬಂದು ಏನು Gಾತ<ಾಡbೆ ನನDನುD .ೈ dದು ನನD ತಮF Nೊರ ೆ ಕ/ೆದು .ೊಂಡು ಬಂದ, ನಮF Gಾವ ಮತುL Tಕ ಪv Nೊರ ೆ ಂ'ದYರು <ಾನು Nೊರ ೆ ಬಂದ ತ ಣ .ಾ ನ ಕೂ H.ೊಂಡು ನನD Tಕ ಪvನ ಮ<ೆ ೆ ಕ/ೆದು.ೊಂಡು ಬಂದರು, ಸದ +gಾರ7ಾZ ನಮF ಮ<ೆಯವರು +gಾ Hbಾಗ ಊ ೆ Nೋಗು'LbೆYೕ7ೆ, pಾ/ೋ 'ೕ .ೊಂdbಾY/ೆ ಮತುL ಅವರ ಕGಾ) ಮುZH ಬರುKಾL/ೆ ಎಂದು NೇಳSKಾL ೩ 'ಂಗಳS ಕ ೆcತು ಅವರು ಬರ ಲ Nೆದ .ೆcಂದ ಹುಟj ಬiೆjಯ ೇ ಬ ಾ ಂದ ಬಂbೆ.
ಆದY ಂದ ೕಲ ಂಡ +ಷಯ.ೆ ಸಂಬಂ_HದಂKೆ WÀ£À ¨ÁAದವರ yಾ&")H.ೊಳS`ವabೇ<ೆಂದ/ೆ ನನD ಗಂಡ<ಾದ /ಾಘ1 , ನನD ಅKೆLpಾದ Kೈ ೇಶ3 , ನನD Gಾವ<ಾದ Hಲಂಬು 2ೆಲ3ಂ, ನನD ಅKೆLಯ Kಾc 7ೆ• ಮ' ಮತುL ಅವರ yೆ&ೕಯHpಾದ ಐಶ3ಯ) ರವರ +ರುದ• .ಾನೂನುಕ&ಮ ಜರುZH ನನ ೆ <ಾ@ಯ .ೊdಸ=ೇಕು ಎಂದು yಾ&")H.ೊಳS`KೆLೕ<ೆ."
A cursory perusal at the complaint would clearly indicate that all the allegations are against two persons. One the husband, the other the alleged paramour of the husband. The further contention is when the letters between the husband and the paramour was put before the parents, the parents did not take any action. Even the grandmother who stays in Coimbatore had instigated the husband to demand dowry and torture the complainant. Therefore, all these names spring in the complaint. Whether on these ingredients, the investigation should be permitted to be continued or otherwise is necessary to be noticed.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR
10. Section 498A of the IPC reads as follows:
"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."
Section 498A deals with cruelty by family members towards demand of dowry. The interpretation of Section 498A of the IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR matter. The Apex Court in KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM v. STATE OF BIHAR1 has held as follows:
"Issue Involved
11. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the Appellants and Respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the in-laws Appellants are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed?
12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.
13. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2018) 10 SCC 472, has observed:-
12022 SCC OnLine SC 162
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR
"14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement."
14. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273), it was also observed:-
"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand-fathers and grand- mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."
15. Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667, it has also been observed:-
"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498AIPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498Aas a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful."
16. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 741, it was observed:-
"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Raovs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 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:
"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, 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 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 reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the 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
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes."
17. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452, it was also observed that:-
"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial dispute sand dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."
18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.
19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.
20. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR. Respondent No. 1 i.e., the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the Ld. Principal Judge Purnea, to not harass the Respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 01.04.19, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17.
21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR
22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged."
(Emphasis supplied) The said judgment is subsequently followed in plethora of judgments of the Apex Court on the issue.
11. The Apex Court in the case of BELIDE SWAGATH KUMAR v. STATE OF TELANGANA2, 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.2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2890
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR 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):
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR 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
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR 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
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR 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.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR
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
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR 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
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR 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."
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR
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
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR 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
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR 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)
12. The Apex Court in the case of MARAM NIRMALA v.
STATE OF TELANGANA3, 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 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2913
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR 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
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR 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
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR 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)
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. In the light of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court as quoted hereinabove and the unequivocal facts that are noticed hereinabove, permitting investigation even against these family members accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 particularly, against the accused no. 4 who is the grandmother of the 1st accused, would on the face of it, become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8376 CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024 HC-KAR
(ii) The FIR in Crime No.13 of 2024 pending on the file of VII Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMfC at Mysuru stands quashed qua the petitioners.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27