(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner - accused No.2 is before this
Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C. No.1050 of
2. The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the second
respondent. The son of the petitioner - accused No.1 who is
24.05.2021. The relationship between the complainant and
the members of the family. One such proceeding is
complainant on 23.02.2023. The petitioner had called in
to challenge the charge sheet so filed against her. In the
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
498-A or 323 of IPC. All the allegations are against the
husband. Learned counsel would submit that permitting
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant
investigation have filed the charge sheet. In the light of the
seeks dismissal of the petition.
5. I have my given my anxious consideration to the
6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The
relationship between the husband and the wife -
complainant - second respondent and accused No.1
£ÀAvÀgÀ F ¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀ: 23-02-2023 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 10:00
UÀAmÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è vÀAiÀiÁgÁUÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ
£À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛgÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è
wgÀÄUÁqÀ¨ÉÃqÀ §jUÁ°£À°è £ÀqÉzÁqÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¤Ã£ÀÄ zÀÄrzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß
£ÀªÀÄUÉ vÀAzÀÄPÉÆqÀÄ E®èªÁzÀgÉ ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà ©lÄÖ
ºÉÆÃUÀÄ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ zÀÄrzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄUÉ PÉÆqÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢¯ÁèªÉAzÀgÉ
¤£Àß PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ gÁf£ÁªÉÄ ¤Ãr ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà ©¢ÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉʬÄAzÀ
ºÉÆqɧqÉ ªÀiÁr, £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀzÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀģɬÄAzÀ
ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ ºÁQzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄä vÀªÀgÀĪÀÄ£ÉUÉ
¥sÉÇÃ£ï ªÀiÁr w½¹ F ¢£À vÀqÀªÁV §AzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ
¤Ãr, PÉʬÄAzÀ ºÉÆqɧqÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ CvÉÛ gÀªÀgÀ
ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F £À£Àß UÀtQÃPÀÈvÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß
¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1675
7. The allegation is against the husband who is said
to have in drunken state, assaulted or abused the wife and
the petitioner is alleged to have instigated the husband in
behaving so. The Police conduct investigation and file their
final report i.e., the charge sheet. The summary of the
charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17, reads as
follows:
"17. PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±À
F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÁ®A £ÀA: 12 gÀ°è. £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ
ªÀiÁrzÀ DgÉÆæ £ÀA: 01 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03-05-2021 gÀAzÀÄ
J¸ï.J¸ï.« zsÀªÀÄð¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÁV ¤²Ñ¬Ä¹,
ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ K¥ÁðqÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, DzÀgÉ D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°
PÀgÉÆãÁ EzÀÄÝzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆæ £ÀA:01 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁ𢠸ÁQë £ÀA:01
gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24-05-2021 gÀAzÀÄ PÉÆ¥Àà¼ÀzÀ §¤ßPÀnÖ
KjAiÀiÁzÀ°,gÀĪÀ ¸ÁQë £ÀA: 06 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ
ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ 09 wAUÀ¼ÀzÀ ¥ÀPÀÈw CAvÁ
ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀÄ«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DgÉÆæ £ÀA: 01 FvÀ£ÀÄ PÉÆ¥Àà¼ÀzÀ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è
QjAiÀÄ C©üAiÀÄAvÀPÀgÁV ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆæ £ÀA: 02 gÀªÀgÀÄ PÉÆ¥Àà¼ÀzÀ
vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è J¥sï.r.¹ DV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ, DgÉÆæ
£ÀA: 01 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÁQë £ÀA: 01 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV 01 wAUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ
ªÀiÁvÀæ ZÉ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉÆAqÀÄ, £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë £ÀA: 01
gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ «£ÁPÁgÀt ¨ÉÊzÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ¸ÁQë £ÀA: 01 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ
CqÀÄUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß Hl ªÀiÁqÀzÉ PÀ¸ÀzÀvÉÆmÉÖUÉ ºÁPÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ
EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, DgÉÆæ £ÀA: 02 gÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæ £ÀA: 01 gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÁQë £ÀA:
01 gÀªÀgÀ §UÉÎ, E®è ¸À®èzÀ ¸ÀÄ¢ÝAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉý dUÀ¼À ºÀZÀÄÑwÛzÀÝjAzÀ
DgÉÆæ £ÀA: 01 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÁQë £ÀA: 01 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ
¸ÀƼÉ, DzÀgÀVwÛ CAvÁ CªÁZÀåªÁV ¨ÉÊzÁr, PÉʬÄAzÀ ºÉÆqɧqÉ
ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 14-02-2023 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ
DgÉÆæ £ÀA: 01 FvÀ£ÀÄ PÀÄrzÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¸ÁQë £ÀA: 01 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß
PÉʬÄAzÀ ºÉÆqɧqÉ ªÀiÁr. ¸ÁQë £ÀA: 01 gÀªÀjUÉ C¼ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ
ªÀÄUÀÄ(¥ÀæPÀÈw)¦UÉ ºÁ®Ät¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À PÉÆqÀzÉ ¸ÁQë £ÀA: 01 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1675
ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀºÁQ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÁV®£ÀÄß ºÁQPÉÆArzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë £ÀA: 01 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë £ÀA: 6 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV £ÀqÉzÀ
WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ, w½¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQë £ÀA: 06 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë £ÀA: 01 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß
PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV DgÉÆæ £ÀA:01 §Ä¢ÝªÁzÀ
ºÉý ¸ÁQë £ÀA: 01 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, £ÀAvÀgÀ
DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë £ÀA: 01 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÉÛ AiÀiÁPÉ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢AiÀiÁ
zsÀjzÀæzÀªÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÁr ªÀÄvÉÛ PÉʬÄAzÀ ºÉÆqɧqÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 23-02-2023 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 10:00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ
¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ ¸ÁQë £ÀA: 01 gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è
vÀAiÀiÁgÁUÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ DgÉÆævÀj§âgÀÆ ¸ÁQë £ÀA: 01 gÀªÀjUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ
¸ÀPÁðj ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è, wgÀÄUÁqÀ¨ÉÃqÀ §jUÁ°£À°, £ÀqÉzÁqÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ
¤Ã£ÀÄ zÀÄrzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄUÉ vÀAzÀÄPÉÆqÀÄ E®èªÁzÀgÉ ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß
£ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ. ¤Ã£ÀÄ zÀÄrzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄUÉ
PÉÆqÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè ªÉAzÀgÉ ¤£Àß PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ gÁf£ÁªÉÄ ¤Ãr
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà ©¢ÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉʬÄAzÀ ºÉÆqɧqÉ ªÀiÁr, ¸ÁQë £ÀA:
01 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀzÉ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ ºÁQzÀÝgÉ §UÉÎ
vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è. ¸ÀAUÀ滹zÀ ¸ÁPÁëzÁgÀUÀ½AzÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ DgÉÆÃ¥À
¸Á©ÃvÁVzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
PÁgÀt DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀ®A: 498(J), 323, 504 ¸À»vÀ
34 L.¦.¹ £ÉÃzÀÝgÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀªÀgÀ°è ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
8. The summary of the charge sheet as quoted
herein above is noticed, there is no direct overt act said to
be performed by the mother-in-law, the present petitioner
while the allegations are against the husband. In the light of
no ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498-
A of IPC, permitting further proceedings to continue against
this petitioner would run foul on the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR ALIAS
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1675
SONAM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND
OTHERS1, wherein it is held as under:
"Issue involved
10. 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 appellant in-laws are in the nature
of general omnibus allegations and therefore
liable to be quashed?
11. Before we delve into greater detail on
the nature and content of allegations made, it
becomes pertinent to mention that
incorporation of Section 498-AIPC 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 Section 498-AIPC as instruments to settle
personal scores against the husband and his
relatives.
12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma
v. State of U.P. [Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P.,
(2018) 10 SCC 472 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 301] , has
observed : (SCC pp. 478-79, para 14)
"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
(2022) 6 SCC 599
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1675
to result in suicide or murder of a woman as
mentioned in the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of Act 46 of 1983. The expression
"cruelty" in Section 498-A 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. [ Explanation to Section 498-
A.] It is a matter of serious concern that large
number of cases continue to be filed under
Section 498-A alleging harassment of married
women. We have 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 visualised. 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."
13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this
Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014)
3 SCC (Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p.
276, para 4)
"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
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 quite a number
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1675
of cases, bedridden grandfathers and
grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living
abroad for decades are arrested."
14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand
[Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC
667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been
observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36)
"32. It is a matter of common experience that
most of these complaints under Section 498-AIPC
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 is
also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have
enormous social responsibility and obligation to
ensure that the social fibre 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 498-A as 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 fibre, peace and
tranquillity of the society remains intact. The
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 visualised by the complainant that
such complaint can lead to insurmountable
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1675
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 the husband and all his immediate
relations is also not uncommon. At times, even
after the conclusion of the 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 scrutinised 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 chances of an amicable
settlement altogether. The process of suffering is
extremely long and painful."
15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta
Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 :
(2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it
was observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21)
"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take
note of an apt observation of this Court recorded
in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.
Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733]
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1675
wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court
had held that the High Court should have quashed
the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute
wherein all family members had been roped into
the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and
set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with
which we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para
12)
'12. ... There has been an outburst of
matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage
is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of
which is to enable the young couple to settle
down in life and live peacefully. But little
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which
often assume serious proportions resulting in
commission of heinous crimes in which elders
of the family are also involved with the result
that those who could have counselled and
brought about rapprochement are rendered
helpless on their being arrayed as accused in
the criminal case. There are many other
reasons which need not be mentioned here for
not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that
the parties may ponder over their defaults and
terminate their disputes amicably by mutual
agreement instead of fighting it out in a court
of law where it takes years and years to
conclude and in that process the parties lose
their "young" days in chasing their cases in
different courts.'
The view taken by the Judges in this matter was
that the courts would not encourage such
disputes."
16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of
Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana,
(2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it
was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6)
"6. ... The courts should be careful in
proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1675
pertaining to matrimonial disputes and 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."
17. The abovementioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this Court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse of
Section 498-AIPC 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.
18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a
perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, 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 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
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1675
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.
19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of
harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a
previous FIR Respondent 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 learned
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 1-4-2019, is distinct and independent,
and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier
FIR dated 11-12-2017.
20. 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 appellant in-laws would simply
result in an abuse of the process of law.
21. Therefore, upon consideration of the
relevant circumstances and in the absence of
any specific role attributed to the appellant-
accused, 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
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1675
severe scars upon the accused, and such an
exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.
22. In view of the above facts and discussions,
the impugned order dated 13-11-2019 [Mohd. Ikram
v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 1985] passed
by the High Court of Patna is set aside. The
impugned FIR No. 248 of 2019 against the appellants
under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498-A read with
Section 34IPC stands quashed."
9. Further, the Apex Court in latest judgment in the
case of PAYAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND
ANOTHER2 has followed the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR ALIAS SONAM AND
OTHERS supra, wherein it is held as under:
"4. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is
appropriate to look into the relationship between the
parties involved in the matter. The couple involved
(now divorced) is the first accused-Amit Sharma and
Vandana Sharma, who is the daughter of the
complainant. Accused No. 6 is the cousin brother of
the first accused and as already noted, accused No. 5
is his wife.
5. The undisputed and indisputable facts, in
succinct, that led to the filing of CRM-M No. 42226 of
2021 before the High Court are as under:--
The marriage between the first accused-Amit
Sharma and Vandana Sharma was solemnized on
23.02.2019. On 07.03.2019, the first accused-
Amit Sharma left for Canada and Vandana
Sharma stayed back in her matrimonial home at
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3473
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1675
Jalandhar in Punjab with her in-laws. On
02.12.2019, Vandana Sharma also left for
Canada. On 22.09.2020, Amit Sharma
approached the Family Court, Canada seeking
divorce from his wife Vandana Sharma. The
lodgement of the subject FIR No. 0080/2020
dated 03.12.2020 by the complainant who is the
father of Vandana Sharma, alleging commission of
the aforementioned offences under the IPC
against all the accused including accused Nos. 5
and 6, was later to initiation of the said
proceedings. It was in the said circumstances that
accused Nos. 5 and 6 filed CRM-M No. 42226 of
2021 before the High Court raising various
grounds, which culminated in the impugned order.
6. The contention of accused No. 5 is that she is
only the wife of the cousin brother of the first
accused, who was the husband of the daughter of
the complainant. Accused No. 5 has been residing
with her husband at Mohali in Punjab whereas the
daughter of the complainant Smt. Vandana was
residing in her matrimonial home at Jalandhar in
Punjab and in other words that they were residing in
different cities. The subject FIR carries only
allegations of general, ominous and omnibus
character against herself, and her husband and they
were arraigned as accused only with mala fide
intention to pressurise to yield to the illegal
demands. It is submitted that though the High Court
has rightly quashed the FIR and all consequential
and subsequential proceedings against accused No.
6, the fact that accused No. 5 is related to the first
accused, the husband of the complainant's daughter
only through accused No. 6 and except the
exaggerated versions, as in the case of her husband,
no specific and separate allegation with supporting
materials are available against her and as such the
High Court ought not to have dismissed the petition
especially after allowing the very same petition as
relates her husband. Contentions, unsuccessful
raised before the High Court were also, thus raised.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1675
7. The learned counsel for the complainant has
reiterated the contentions raised before the High
Court, to support the impugned order. The impugned
order would reveal that while resisting the prayer of
accused No. 5 for quashing the FIR and all
subsequent proceedings therefrom, it was contended
before the High Court that specific allegations were
raised against her and challan was submitted and the
matter was listed for framing charges and hence, all
the pleas could be raised by her before the trial
Court. Evidently, the said contention is untaken, but
the High Court held, as relates her, in paragraph 7 of
the impugned judgment, thus:--
"7. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties
and after carefully perusing the record, this Court
finds that there are specific allegations qua
petitioner No. 2 and thus, at this stage it will not
be a case to quash the FIR qua her. Resultantly,
the present petition qua petitioner No. 2 stands
dismissed."
8. In view of the aforementioned rival
contentions, we bestowed an analytical consideration
and found that besides the afore-extracted
paragraph 7 there is absolutely no consideration of
the contentions of the appellant in the impugned
judgment. We have already noticed that the accused
No. 5 is only the wife of the cousin brother of the
husband of the complainant's daughter, and she was
living in another city along with her husband. In view
of the aforesaid undisputed position, it is relevant to
refer to certain decisions of this Court.
9. In the decision in Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 this Court
observed that it is a matter of common
knowledge that in matrimonial disputes
exaggerated versions of the incident are
reflected in a large number of complaints and
the tendency of over implication is also
reflected in a large number of cases. The
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1675
criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for
all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the
trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep
scars of sufferings of ignominy, it was further
held therein. We have no hesitation to hold that
the said observation of this Court is in fact,
sounding of a caution, against non-discharge of
the duty to see whether implication of a person
who is not a close relative of the family of the
husband is over implication or whether
allegation against any such person is an
exaggerated version, in matrimonial disputes of
this nature. In this context, it is to be noted
that the term 'relative' has not been defined in
the statute and, therefore, it must be assigned
a meaning as is commonly understood. Hence,
normally, it can be taken to include, father,
mother, husband or wife, son, daughter,
brother, sister, nephew, niece, grandson or
granddaughter of any individual or the spouse
of any person. To put it shortly, it includes a
person related by blood, marriage or adoption.
In paragraph 35 of Preeti Gupta's case (supra)
it was furthermore held thus:--
"...The courts have to be extremely careful
and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic realties
into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases. The allegations of
harassment by husband's close relatives 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
complainant are required to be scrutinized
with great care and circumspection."
10. In such circumstances, normally against
a person who is not falling under any of the
aforesaid categories when allegations are
raised, in the light of the observations made in
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1675
Preeti Gupta's case (supra), the Court
concerned owes an irrecusable duty to see
whether such implication is over implication
and/or whether the allegations against such a
person is an exaggerated version. We have
already taken note of the fact that except the
observation made in paragraph 7 there is no
consideration at all of the contentions of
accused No. 5 in the impugned order.
11. In the decision in Geeta Mehrotra v.
State of U.P.,(2012) 10 SCC 741, this Court held
that mere casual reference of the names of the
family members in a matrimonial dispute
without allegation of active involvement in the
matter would not justify taking cognizance
against them overlooking the tendency of over
implication viz., to draw the entire members of
the household in the domestic quarrel resulting
in matrimonial dispute, especially when it
happens soon after the wedding. In the
decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State
of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 , this Court quashed
proceedings in so far as family members of the
husband on the ground that the allegations
against them are general and ominous in
nature. In matters like the one at hand when
relatives not residing in the same house where
the alleged victim resides, the courts shall not
stop consideration by merely looking into the
question where the accused is a person falling
within the ambit of the expression 'relative' for
the purpose of Section 498-A, IPC, but should
also consider whether it is a case of over
implication or exaggerated version solely to
implicate such person(s) to pressurise the main
accused. It is also relevant to refer to the
decision of this Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal4, wherein after considering the
statutory provisions and the earlier decisions,
this Court referred to various categories of
cases where the inherent powers under Section
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1675
482, Cr. P.C. could be exercised by High Court
to prevent abuse of process of Court or
otherwise to secure ends of justice. One among
such categories is where the allegations made
in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent man could ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against an accused.
12. We will proceed to consider the case in
respect of accused No. 5 a little later and now, will
consider the challenge of complainant against
quashment of the subject FIR and all consequential
bearing in mind the above conclusions and decisions.
It is to be noted that the impugned order itself would
reveal that the learned counsel who appeared for the
complainant admitted before the High Court
regarding the absence of allegations against accused
No. 6 as relates offences under Sections 406 and
498-A, IPC. This is discernible from paragraph 6 of
the impugned order and it reads thus:--
"6. Qua Petitioner No. 1, Ld. Counsel admits
that so far as Sections 406 and 498-A are
concerned, there are no specific allegations. He
asserts that offences punishable under Sections
420 and 120-B of the IPC have been added later
on and the allegations levelled against petitioner
No. 1 shall well fall within the ambit of Sections
420 IPC and 417 of the IPC."
13. Thus, it can be seen that what was left to be
considered by the High Court in C.R.M.-M No. 42226
of 2021, as relates accused No. 6 was whether the
allegations satisfied the ingredients to attract
Sections 420 and 417, IPC."
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1675
10. In the light of the facts as narrated herein above
and the judgments of the Apex Court permitting further trial
against this petitioner i.e., the mother-in-law would run foul
of the aforesaid orders and become an abuse of the process
of the law resulting in miscarriage of justice.
11. For the aforesaid reason, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order in C.C. No.1050/2023 passed by
the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC,
Koppal for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section
34 of IPC insofar as taking cognizance is
concerned and the entire proceedings in
Koppal Women P.S. in Crime No.11/2023
qua the petitioner - accused No.2 stands
quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
VNP/CT-ASC
