Karnataka High Court
Mr. Mali Subbiah vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE R
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5070 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
MR. MALI SUBBIAH
SON OF LATE MAHALINGAM SIDHAMBARAM
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 133,
ADARSH PALM RETREAT
DEVARABISANAHALLI,
NEAR INTEL, BELLANDUR
BANGALORE- 560 103.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRABHULING NAVADAGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SANGAMESH.R.B, AND SRI. CHANDRA CHOODA.R.N, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MARATHALLI P.S
BANGALORE CITY 560 037
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Digitally BANGALORE - 560001
signed by
CHANDANA
BM 2. SMT. GEETA SUBBIAH
Location: W/O MALI SUBBIAH
High Court
of AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
Karnataka RESIDING AT NO. 133,
ADARSH PALM RETREAT
DEVARABISANAHALLI,
NEAR INTEL, BELLANDUR
BANGALORE - 560 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHARATH.S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2
SRI. THEJESH.P, HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CHARGE SHEET AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING AND IN
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
C.C.NO.50676/2023 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.258/2022 AGAINST THE
PETITIONER WHO IS THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A OF
IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXIX ACMM (29TH ADLL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, MAYOHALL UNIT) BANGALORE
CITY PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A AND D.
THIS PETITION IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 21.02.2025
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CAV ORDER
In this petition, petitioner - husband seeks quashing of the
impugned proceedings in C.C.No.50676/2023 arising out of Crime
No.258/2022 registered by the 1st respondent - Police for offences
punishable under Section 498-A IPC on the file of the XXIX ACMM,
Mayo Hall, Bangalore, initiated by the 2nd respondent - wife against
the petitioner.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as
under:-
The petitioner - accused and 2nd respondent - complainant
got married in USA on 19.10.1999 and they have two children from
out of their wedlock. In the year 2002, all of them relocated to
Bangalore and are residing here. On 16.09.2022, the petitioner
instituted divorce proceedings in M.C.No.5728/2022 against the 2nd
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
respondent for a decree for divorce and other reliefs and the said
proceedings which are contested by the 2nd respondent, who filed
her statement of objections on 05.11.2022 are pending adjudication
before the Family Court. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent filed the
impugned complaint on 08.11.2022 which was registered as an FIR
in Crime No.258/2022 against the petitioner- accused No.1 and
one Shilpa K.P. - accused No.2 for the alleged offences
punishable under Section 498-A, 406, 506, 120-B r/w 34 IPC
interalia alleging that the petitioner along with accused No.2 with
whom he was having an extra marital affair had not only treated the
complainant with cruelty but also cheated and stolen gold and
silver jewelry, silver utensils etc., worth about Rs.1,50,00,000/-
from the 2nd respondent. In pursuance of the same, the 1st
respondent seized the aforesaid movables and conducted
investigation and filed a charge sheet dated 03.02.2023 arraigning
only the petitioner as the sole accused in C.C.No.50676/2023 by
deleting / dropping not only accused No.2 from the array of
accused but also restricting the proceedings only to an offence
under Section 498-A IPC and deleting / dropping the remaining
aforesaid offences.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
2.1 The petitioner filed a claim application under Sections
451 and 457 Cr.P.C. seeking release of the aforesaid movables
which was not only opposed by the 2nd respondent who also sought
for release of the said movables in her favour. By common order
dated 27.03.2023, the Sessions Court allowed the claim application
of the petitioner and rejected the claim application of the 2nd
respondent, thereby directing release of the movables in favour of
the petitioner. Aggrieved by the impugned proceedings, petitioner
is before this Court by way of the present petition.
3. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and
learned Senior counsel for the 2nd respondent as well as learned
HCGP for the 1st respondent - State and perused the material on
record.
4. A perusal of the impugned complaint will indicate that
insofar as the allegations relating to alleged commission of offence
under Section 498-A is concerned, except general vague, bald and
omnibus allegations, specific details and material particulars in this
regard are conspicuously absent in the impugned complaint; in
fact, the allegations made in the entire complaint revolve
completely upon the alleged extra marital affair of the petitioner
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
with one Shilpa K.P. and that both of them had stolen the movables
of the 2nd respondent and had intimidated her with common
intention and were guilty of offences punishable under Sections
406, 506, 120-B r/w 34 IPC; in this context, it is relevant to state
that after investigation, charge sheet has been filed only against
the petitioner - sole accused by deleting / dropping accused No.2 -
Smt.Shilpa K.P. as well as the alleged offences under Sections
406, 506, 120-B r/w 34 IPC and the impugned proceedings are
restricted to alleged offences only against petitioner - sole accused
and limited / restricted only to Section 498-A IPC. It follows
therefrom that in the light of the majority / major portion of the
allegations contained in the complaint being in relation to and
revolving around Sections 406, 506, 120-B r/w 34 IPC in
connection with accused No.2 - Smt.K.P.Shilpa, which have been
dropped from the charge sheet and are no longer pending
adjudication before the trial court. In other words, having regard to
the material on record which indicates that the impugned
proceedings are restricted and limited only to an offence
punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and only against the
petitioner herein coupled with general vague, bald and omnibus
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
allegations, specific details and material particulars in this regard
are conspicuously absent in the impugned complaint, I am of the
view that the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.
5. The undisputed material on record also establishes that
prior to the 2nd respondent filing the impugned complaint on
08.11.2022, the petitioner - husband had already instituted divorce
proceedings against 2nd respondent - wife on 16.09.2022, in which,
she had entered appearance on 05.11.2022 and filed her
statement of objections and is contesting the proceedings. It is
therefore clear that in the light of the prior / earlier matrimonial
dispute between the petitioner - husband and 2nd respondent -
wife who are hotly prosecuting and contesting the said
proceedings, the impugned complaint is clearly a counter blast by
the 2nd respondent to the matrimonial proceedings initiated earlier
by the petitioner and consequently, on this ground also, the
impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.
6. A perusal of the charge sheet and material collected by
the 1st respondent will indicate that the spot mahazar, seizure
mahazar etc., are only in relation to the movables seized by the 1st
respondent - police authorities, in relation to the alleged offences
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
under Sections 406, 506, 120-B r/w 34 IPC and not in relation to
Section 498-A IPC; further, except the sole and self-serving
statement of the 2nd respondent - complainant, who is cited as
witness No.1 in the charge sheet, the remaining five witnesses
comprise of 4 panch witnesses and one police officer, all of whom
have given statements only in relation to the offences punishable
under Sections 406, 506, 120-B r/w 34 IPC and not in relation to
an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Under these
circumstances, in the absence of any material whatsoever which
disclose the commission of the alleged offence under Section 498-
A IPC by the petitioner in the complaint, FIR, charge sheet,
statements, documents etc., I am of the view that the impugned
proceedings against the petitioner for an alleged offence under
Section 498-A are nothing but an abuse of process of law
warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.
7. The undisputed material on record will also indicate that
the claim petition filed by the petitioner for release of movables was
allowed by the trial court vide order dated 27.03.2023, while the
claim petition filed by the 2nd respondent was rejected by the trial
court in the very same order which has attained finality and
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
become conclusive and binding upon the parties and consequently,
the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed on this score
also.
8. In Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana - (2025) 3 SCC
756, the Apex Court held as under:-
"17. The plain reading of the FIR and the charge-
sheet papers indicate that the allegations levelled by the first
informant are quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying
no instances of criminal conduct. It is also pertinent to note
that in the FIR no specific date or time of the alleged
offence/offences has been disclosed. Even the police
thought it fit to drop the proceedings against the other
members of the appellant's family. Thus, we are of the view
that the FIR lodged by Respondent 2 was nothing but a
counterblast to the divorce petition and also the domestic
violence case.
18. It is also pertinent to note that Respondent 2
lodged the FIR on 9-4-2021 i.e. nearly 2 years after the
filing of the divorce petition by the appellant and 6
months after the filing of the domestic violence case by her
mother-in-law. Thus, the first informant remained silent for
nearly 2 years after the divorce petition was filed. With such
an unexplained delay in filing the FIR, we find that the
same was filed only to harass the appellant and his family
members.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
24. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on
some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on
record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is
nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court
owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the
complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie,
whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or
whether they are made only with the sole object of
involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more
particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial
dispute.
25. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti
Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3
SCC (Cri) 473] , this Court observed the following : (SCC
pp. 676-77, paras 30-38)
"30. It is a matter of common knowledge that
unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly
increasing in our country. All the courts in our
country including this Court are flooded with
matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates
discontent and unrest in the family life of a large
number of people of the society.
31. The courts are receiving a large number
of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Penal
Code, 1860 which reads as under:
'498-A. 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.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
Explanation.--For the purposes 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.'
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.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
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 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 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 amicable
settlement altogether. The process of suffering is
extremely long and painful.
37. Before parting with this case, we would
like to observe that a serious relook of the entire
provision is warranted by the legislature. It is also a
matter of common knowledge that exaggerated
versions of the incident are reflected in a large
number of complaints. The tendency of over
implication is also reflected in a very large number of
cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial
may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of
suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number
of these complaints have not only flooded the courts
but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting
peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is
high time that the legislature must take into
consideration the pragmatic realities and make
suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative
for the legislature to take into consideration the
informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in
consideration and make necessary changes in the
relevant provisions of law.
38. We direct the Registry to send a copy of
this judgment to the Law Commission and to the
Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may
place it before the Hon'ble Minister for Law and
Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger
interest of the society."
(emphasis supplied)
26. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to and rely
upon the decision 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] . In the said case, the petitioner,
apprehending arrest in a case under Section 498-AIPC and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, prayed for
anticipatory bail before this Court, having failed to obtain
the same from the High Court [Arnesh Kumar v. State of
Bihar, 2013 SCC OnLine Pat 770] . In that context, the
observations made by this Court in paras 4, 5 and 6,
respectively, are worth taking note of. They are reproduced
below : (Arnesh Kumar case [Arnesh Kumar v. State of
Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] , SCC
pp. 276-77)
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
"4. There is 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 of cases, bedridden grandfathers and
grandfathers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad
for decades are arrested. "Crime in India 2012
Statistics" published by the National Crime Records
Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of
1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for
the offence under Section 498-AIPC, 9.4% more than
the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under
this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which
depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were
liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out
of the total persons arrested under the crimes
committed under Penal Code, 1860. It accounts for
4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections
of the Penal Code, more than any other crimes
excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in
cases under Section 498-AIPC is as high as 93.6%,
while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest
across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are
pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly
3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.
5. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and
casts scars forever. Lawmakers know it so also the
police. There is a battle between the lawmakers and the
police and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson :
the lesson implicit and embodied in CrPC. It has not
come out of its colonial image despite six decades of
Independence, it is largely considered as a tool of
harassment, oppression and surely not considered a
friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the
drastic power of arrest has been emphasised time and
again by the court but has not yielded desired result.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so
also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only
this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources
of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then
proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a
handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or
act with oblique motive.
6. Law Commissions, Police Commissions and
this Court in a large number of judgments emphasised
the need to maintain a balance between individual
liberty and societal order while exercising the power of
arrest. Police officers make arrest as they believe that
they possess the power to do so. As the arrest curtails
freedom, brings humiliation and casts scars forever, we
feel differently. We believe that no arrest should be
made only because the offence is non-bailable and
cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers to
do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing,
the justification for the exercise of it is quite another.
Apart from the power to arrest, the police officers must
be able to justify the reasons thereof. No arrest can be
made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of
commission of an offence made against a person. It
would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no
arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction
reached after some investigation as to the genuineness
of the allegation. Despite this legal position, the
legislature did not find any improvement. Numbers of
arrest have not decreased. Ultimately, Parliament had
to intervene and on the recommendation of the 177th
Report of the Law Commission submitted in the year
2001, Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for
short "CrPC"), in the present form came to be enacted.
It is interesting to note that such a recommendation was
made by the Law Commission in its 152nd and 154th
Report submitted as back in the year 1994."
(emphasis supplied)
31. If the submission canvassed by the counsel
appearing for Respondent 2 and the State is to be
accepted mechanically then in our opinion the very
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
conferment of the inherent power by CrPC upon the High
Court would be rendered otiose. We are saying so for the
simple reason that if the wife on account of matrimonial
disputes decides to harass her husband and his family
members then the first thing, she would ensure is to see
that proper allegations are levelled in the first information
report. Many times the services of professionals are availed
for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a legal
mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any
loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However, that
does not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and
raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true or
false, there are allegations in the first information report
and the charge-sheet papers disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence. If the allegations alone as levelled,
more particularly in the case like the one on hand, are to be
looked into or considered then why the investigating
agency thought it fit to file a closure report against the other
co-accused? There is no answer to this at the end of the
learned counsel appearing for the State. We say so,
because allegations have been levelled not only against
the appellant herein but even against his parents, brother
and sister. If that be so, then why the police did not deem it
fit to file charge-sheet against the other co-accused? It
appears that even the investigating agency was convinced
that the FIR was nothing but an outburst arising from a
matrimonial dispute.
32. Many times, the parents including the close
relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a molehill.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
Instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible
endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to
ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the
husband and his family members, brings about complete
destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that
comes in the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives
is the police, as if the police is the panacea of all evil. No
sooner the matter reaches up to the police, then even if
there are fair chances of reconciliation between the
spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a
sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting
one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain
bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty
quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and
should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to
destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven. The
Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed
from that point of view in determining what constitutes
cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the
physical and mental conditions of the parties, their
character and social status. A very technical and
hypersensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for
the very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes
the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with
such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a
second that if the marriage would come to an end, then
what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a
very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is
concerned. The only reason why we are saying so is that
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation
of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but
hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill-
treatment and harassment by the husband and his family
members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment
or harassment may vary. However, the police machinery
should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that
too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The
police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of
holding the husband at ransom so that he could be
squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or
relatives or friends. In all cases, where wife complains of
harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498-AIPC cannot be
applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections
506(2) and 323IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may
cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty.
Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which
happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to
cruelty.
33. Lord Denning, in Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky
observed as under : (P p. 46)
When the conduct consists of direct action by one
against the other, it can then properly be said to be aimed
at the other, even though there is no desire to injure the
other or to inflict misery on him. Thus, it may consist of a
display of temperament, emotion, or perversion whereby
the one gives vent to his or her own feelings, not intending
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
to injure the other, but making the other the object--the
butt--at whose expense the emotion is relieved.
When there is no intent to injure, they are not to be
regarded as cruelty unless they are plainly and distinctly
proved to cause injury to health.
"When the conduct does not consist of direct
action against the other, but only of misconduct
indirectly affecting him or her, such as drunkenness,
gambling, or crime, then it can only properly be said to
be aimed at the other when it is done, not only for the
gratification of the selfish desires of the one who does it,
but also in some part with an intention to injure the other
or to inflict misery on him or her. Such an intention may
readily be inferred from the fact that it is the natural
consequence of his conduct, especially when the one
spouse knows, or it has already been brought to his
notice, what the consequences will be, and
nevertheless he does it, careless and indifferent
whether it distresses the other spouse or not. The Court
is, however not bound to draw the inference. The
presumption that a person intends the natural
consequences of his acts is one that may -- not must
-- be drawn. If in all the circumstances it is not the
correct inference, then it should not be drawn. In cases
of this kind, if there is no desire to injure or inflict misery
on the other, the conduct only becomes cruelty when
the justifiable remonstrances of the innocent party
provoke resentment on the part of the other, which
evinces itself in actions or words actually or physically
directed at the innocent party."
34. What constitutes cruelty in matrimonial matters
has been well explained in American Jurisprudence, 2nd
Edn., Vol. 24, p. 206. It reads thus:
"The question whether the misconduct
complained of constitute cruelty and the like for divorce
purposes is determined primarily by its effect upon the
particular person complaining of the acts. The question
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
is not whether the conduct would be cruel to a
reasonable person or a person of average or normal
sensibilities, but whether it would have that effect upon
the aggrieved spouse. That which may be cruel to one
person may be laughed off by another, and what may
not be cruel to an individual under one set of
circumstances may be extreme cruelty under another
set of circumstances."
(emphasis supplied)
35. In one of the recent pronouncements of this
Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. [Mahmood
Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 488] , authored by one
of us (J.B. Pardiwala, J.), the legal principle applicable
apropos Section 482CrPC was examined. Therein, it was
observed that when an accused comes before the High
Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section
482CrPC or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal
proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or
instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance,
then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to
look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was
further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to
look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed
or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court
owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case over
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
and above the averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection, to try and read between the lines.
36. For the foregoing reasons, we have reached to
the conclusion that if the criminal proceedings are allowed
to continue against the appellant, the same will be nothing
short of abuse of process of law and travesty of justice.
This is a fit case wherein, the High Court should have
exercised its inherent power under Section 482CrPC for
the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings.
9. In Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jarkhand - (2010) 7 SCC
667, the Apex Court held as under:-
"28. We have very carefully considered the averments
of the complaint and the statements of all the witnesses
recorded at the time of the filing of the complaint. There are
no specific allegations against the appellants in the
complaint and none of the witnesses have alleged any role
of both the appellants.
29. Admittedly, Appellant 1 is a permanent resident
of Navasari, Surat, Gujarat and has been living with her
husband for more than seven years. Similarly, Appellant 2
is a permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharashtra. They
have never visited the place where the alleged incident had
taken place. They had never lived with Respondent 2 and
her husband. Their implication in the complaint is meant to
harass and humiliate the husband's relatives. This seems
to be the only basis to file this complaint against the
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
appellants. Permitting the complainant to pursue this
complaint would be an abuse of the process of law.
30. It is a matter of common knowledge that
unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in
our country. All the courts in our country including this
Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly
demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a
large number of people of the society.
31. The courts are receiving a large number of
cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Penal Code
which reads as under:
"498-A. 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 purposes 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."
32. It is a matter of common experience that most of
these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the
heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
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 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
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
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
complainant 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.
37. Before parting with this case, we would like to
observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is
warranted by the legislature. It is also a matter of common
knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are
reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of
over implication is also reflected in a very large number of
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
cases. The 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 suffering of ignominy.
Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not
only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous
social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of
the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into
consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable
changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the
legislature to take into consideration the informed public
opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and
make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law."
10. In the case of Digamber vs. State of Maharastra -
2024 INSC 1019, the Apex Court held as under:-
"30. In the present case also, as discussed above,
the facts when taken at face value, do not reveal any
specific instance of cruelty committed by the appellants
herein. In our view, only stating that cruelty has been
committed by the appellants herein due to some reason,
would not amount to the offence under Section 498-
A of IPC being attracted. The next allegation regarding a
specific incident relating to the miscarriage being caused
by the appellants herein has also been discussed above. A
bare perusal of the allegation and the analysis of the same
when compared with the statement of the Doctor reveals
that even if the allegations are accepted at the face value, it
would not prima facie make out a case against the present
appellants.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
31. Furthermore, the complaint was lodged after the
notice of Divorce was given by the complainant, wherein,
there was not even a whisper of the allegation of the cruelty
or the miscarriage caused by the appellants. The alleged
incident took place in 2016, whereas the complaint was
filed after the notice of Divorce was given by the
complainant, i.e. in 2018. The latest alleged incident in the
FIR is of the year 2016, wherein the most serious
allegations under Sections 312 and 313 of the IPC is
raised. The explanation for the delay in filing of the
complaint given by the complainant is that she did not want
to spoil the marital relations. However, she has herself
stated that she began residing separately and had moved
out of the matrimonial house. Further, she had sent the
notice of Divorce on 15th May 2018. This would certainly
mean that she believed that the marriage had broken down
without there being any hope of reconciliation. It is difficult
to believe that despite the complainant taking such drastic
steps, she did not file the present FIR for another six
months after the notice of Divorce was sent. Moreover, the
notice of Divorce was completely silent about the
allegations raised in the FIR which was subsequently filed.
The notice of Divorce on the other hand contained
allegations relating to the demand of money and jewellery
from the complainant by the son of the appellants. It also
contained vague allegations of physical assault inflicted by
the son of the appellants. No allegation of cruelty or the
miscarriage allegedly caused by the appellants was raised.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
32. These facts lead us to conclude that the
proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive of
pressurizing the son of the appellant herein to consent to
the divorce according to the terms of the complainant and
the proceedings were used as a weapon by the
complainant in the personal discord between the couple.
33. It would again, be apposite to refer to the case
of Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra) wherein this Court has
discussed the objective of Section 498-A of IPC and has
also raised its concerns over the misuse of this Section in
matrimonial disputes. This Court observed thus:
"28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the 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 498A of
the 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 scrutinized, 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 498A of
the 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.
29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any
woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has
been contemplated under Section 498A of
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
the 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 498A of the 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."
34. We therefore hold that the continuance of the
criminal proceedings against the appellants would result in
an abuse of process of law.
35. In the present case, the High Court has held that
the allegations made by the complainant cannot be
presumed to be false and whether they are believable or
not will be examined by the Trial Court. We hold that this
was an erroneous approach taken by the High Court as
according to the principles laid down in the case
of Bhajanlal (supra), the allegations levelled in the
complaint should at the very least be given a prima
facie consideration.
36. In the result, we find that, this was a fit case
wherein the High Court should have exercised its inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. to quash the
criminal proceedings.
37. We are therefore inclined to allow the present
appeal.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
38. We accordingly pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed;
(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated
23rd January 2020 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in
Criminal Application No. 859 of 2019 is
quashed and set aside; and
(iii) The criminal proceedings against the
appellants in FIR No. 339 of 2018 and Final
Report No. 10 of 2021 on the file of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Latur and all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom are quashed
and set aside.
39. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of."
11. Recently, in the case of Rajesh Chaddha vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh - 2025 INSC 671, the Apex court held as under:-
"8. At the outset, an act of 'cruelty' for the purpose of
Section 498A, corresponds to a willful conduct of such
nature, that may cause danger to the life, limb and health of
the woman, which is inclusive of the mental and physical
health and the harassment caused to her, by coercing her
to meet unlawful demands or impossible standards. Further,
the demand for dowry in terms of Section 3 and Section 4 of
the D.P. Act, 1961 refers to both a direct or indirect manner
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
of demand for dowry made by the husband or his family
members. In order to meet the threshold of the offences
under Section 498A IPC & Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act,
1961, the allegations cannot be ambiguous or made in thin
air.
9. In the present case, the allegations made by the
Complainant are vague, omnibus and bereft of any material
particulars to substantiate this threshold. Apart from
claiming that Appellant husband harassed her for want of
dowry, the Complainant has not given any specific details
or described any particular instance of harassment. The
allegations in the FIR, and the depositions of the
prosecution witnesses suggest that on multiple occasions,
the Complainant wife was ousted from the matrimonial
house, and kicked and punched in the presence of her
father, PW-2 herein and she was repeatedly tormented with
dowry demands, and when she was unable to honor them,
the Appellant and her family physically beat her up;
whereas she has not mentioned the time, date, place, or
manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. It is
alleged that the Complainant suffered a miscarriage, as
she fell down, when the Appellant and her family who
pushed her out of the house; however, no medical
document from any medical institution or hospital or
nursery was produced to substantiate the allegations.
10. Upon carefully considering the record, we find
that apart from the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, there is
no evidence to substantiate the allegations of harassment
and acts of cruelty within the scope of Section 498A of IPC,
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961. For this reason, we
find merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the
Appellant, and are of the considered view that there is no
material on record to establish the allegations of hurt or
miscarriage, and of hurt and criminal intimidation in terms
of Section 323 r/w 34 and Section 506 IPC respectively.
The Trial Court has rightly held that evidence of the
Complainant is the only strong evidence that she sustained
injuries on various parts of her body due to the physical
assault by the accused persons, and that there was no
medical examination conducted by the Complainant, so as
to prove that the miscarriage was a consequence of the
physical assault.
11. The Trial Court has indeed applied its judicial
mind to the material on record whilst acquitting the
Appellant and the co-accused parents-in-law for offences
under Section 323 r/w 34 & Section 506 IPC. However, it
appears that the Trial Court had passed the order of
conviction of the Appellant under Section 498A IPC &
Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, merely on the possibility
that the allegations and the depositions of the PW-1
corroborated by PW2, are true and correct. Although one
cannot deny the emotional or mental torture that the
Complainant may have undergone in the marriage,
however a cursory or plausible view cannot be conclusive
proof to determine the guilt of an individual under Section
498A & Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, especially to
obviate malicious criminal prosecution of family members in
matrimonial disputes. In this respect, we also cannot ignore
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
that the FIR dt. 20.12.1999 was registered after the
Appellant had filed the Divorce Petition under
Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 06.02.1999. In
consideration thereof and that the Complainant had
cohabited with the Appellant only for a period of about a
year, it appears that the FIR registered by the Complainant
was not genuine.
12. In respect thereof, the High Court while
exercising its revisionary jurisdiction ought to have
examined the correctness of decision of the Trial Court in
light of the material on record, which reveals nothing
incriminatory against the Appellant to sustain a conviction
under Section 498A IPC or Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961.
Although we do not agree with the submission on behalf of
the Appellant that the Impugned Order dt. 14.11.2018 was
passed in absentia, however the High Court was well within
its revisionary powers to discern whether an FIR and the
proceedings emanating therefrom were sustainable. In all
certainty, it could have saved 6 years' worth of time for the
Appellant, who has endured litigation for over 20 years as
of today.
13. Notwithstanding the merits of the case, we are
distressed with the manner, the offences under
Section 498A IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act,
1961 are being maliciously roped in by Complainant wives,
insofar as aged parents, distant relatives, married sisters
living separately, are arrayed as accused, in matrimonial
matters. This growing tendency to append every relative of
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
the husband, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the
allegations made by the Complainant wife or her family
members, and vitiates the very objective of a protective
legislation. The observations made by this Hon'ble Court in
the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana
-(2025) 3 SCC 735 appropriately encapsulates this
essence as under:
"25. 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, appellant Nos.
2 to 6, who are the members of the family of
appellant No. 1 have been living in different
cities and have not resided in the matrimonial
house of appellant No. 1 and respondent No.
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."
14. The term "cruelty" is subject to rather cruel
misuse by the parties, and cannot be established
simpliciter without specific instances, to say the least. The
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
tendency of roping these sections, without mentioning any
specific dates, time or incident, weakens the case of the
prosecutions, and casts serious suspicion on the viability of
the version of a Complainant. We cannot ignore the
missing specifics in a criminal complaint, which is the
premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State. Be that
as it may, we are informed that the marriage of the
Appellant has already been dissolved and the divorce
decree has attained finality, hence any further prosecution
of the Appellant will only tantamount to an abuse of
process of law.
15. We accordingly allow the Appeals and the Order
dt.14.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in
Criminal Revision No. 612/2004 convicting the Appellant
under Section 498A of IPC & Section 4 of D.P. Act, 1961, is
set aside and the Appellant is acquitted of all the charges.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed
of."
12. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Aiyappa
M.B. vs. State of Karnataka - 2023 SCC OnLine KAR 30, held
as under:-
"15. Insofar as accused 2 and 3/mother-in-law and
father-in-law are concerned, the complaint or the summary of
the charge sheet on the face of it, does not make out an iota
of ingredient of Section 498A of the IPC. Section 498A of
the IPC reads as follows:
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
"498-A. 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 purposes of this section,
"cruelty" means-
(a) any willful 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."
16. Section 498A of the IPC has two parts in it which
define cruelty. Cruelty would mean any willful conduct
which is of the nature as is likely to drive a woman to
commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to the life of
the woman. The other part is harassment, where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand. The section
itself punishes the husband or the relative who subjects a
woman to such cruelty.
17. A perusal at the complaint would indicate no
ingredient of any cruelty by the in-laws i.e., father-in-law
and the mother-in-law and it is an admitted fact that the
parents never stayed with the couple. In the teeth of such
facts, if further proceedings are permitted to continue
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
against the parents, it would become an abuse of the
process of law and run foul of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF
BIHAR - 2022 SCC Online SC 162, wherein it is held as
follows:
"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 in-laws Appellants 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 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.
12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh
Sharma v. State of U.P.4, has observed:--
"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 Act 46 of
1983. The expression "cruelty" in Section 498A
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
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."
13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of
this court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar5, 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-A IPC 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-A IPC 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 a quite number of cases, bed-ridden
grandfathers and grand-mothers of the husbands,
their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."
14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand6, it has also been observed:--
"32. It is a matter of common experience that
most of these complaints under
section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment
over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We
come across a large number of such complaints
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
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 498A 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 fiber,
peace and tranquility 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 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
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
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 chances of amicable
settlement altogether. The process of suffering is
extremely long and painful."
15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP7, 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. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad 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:
"12.....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
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
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. The State of
Telangana8, it was also observed that:--
"6.....The Courts should be careful in
proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes
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 above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances
expressed concern over the misuse of
section 498A 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.
18. 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 any specific role in furtherance of the
general allegations made against them. This simply
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
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.
19. 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.
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 in-laws
Appellants 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 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
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
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.
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)
18. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court as
afore-extracted, the proceedings against in-laws are
required to be obliterated.
19. Insofar as the husband/1st petitioner is
concerned, the complaint narrates several grievances and
those grievances are trivial in nature. It is the averment that
the complainant knew about the attitude of the husband.
Even then, she gets married due to the force of elders of
the family thinking that the husband would become alright
and stayed only for 28 days in the matrimonial house. In
those 28 days, neither the complaint nor the summary
charge sheet narrates any factum/incident that would
become an ingredient of Section 498A of the IPC. The only
allegation is that, he is a follower of Brahmakumari; always
was watching videos of one sister Shivani, a
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
Brahmakumari; gets inspired by watching those videos,
always told that love is never getting physical, it should be
soul to soul. On this score, he never intended to have
physical relationship with his wife. This would undoubtedly
amount to cruelty due to non-consummation of marriage
under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and not
cruelty as is defined under Section 498A of the IPC. It is on
the basis of such cruelty a decree of divorce is granted to
the complainant and on the same basis, criminal
proceedings cannot be permitted to be continued. Finding
no ingredient even against the husband, the proceedings if
permitted to continue would degenerate into harassment,
become an abuse of the process of law and ultimately
result in miscarriage of justice.
20. In matrimonial cases, the Apex Court has time
and again directed that unless the offences are found albeit
prima facie, such proceedings should not be permitted to
continue. The Apex Court in the case of SHAFIYA
KHAN v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - (2022) 4 SCC
549, has held as follows:
"18. Although it is true that it was not open
for the Court to embark upon any enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in
the FIR, but at least there has to be some factual
supporting material for what has been alleged in the
FIR which is completely missing in the present case
and documentary evidence on record clearly
supports that her Nikah Nama was duly registered
and issued by competent authority and even the
charge-sheet filed against her does not prima facie
disclose how the marriage certificate was forged.
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
CRL.P No. 5070 of 2023
HC-KAR
19. In the given circumstances and going
through the complaint on the basis of which FIR
was registered and other material placed on record,
we are of the considered view that no offence of any
kind as has been alleged in the FIR, has been made
out against the appellant and if we allow the
criminal proceedings to continue, it will be nothing
but a clear abuse of the process of law and will be a
mental trauma to the appellant which has been
completely overlooked by the High Court while
dismissing the petition filed at her instance under
Section 482 CrPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
21. In the light of the judgments rendered by the
Apex Court in the cases of KAHKASHAN
KAUSAR and SHAFIYA KHAN (supra), I deem it
appropriate to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. and obliterate entire
proceedings against all the accused.
22. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
a. The Criminal petition is allowed.
b. The proceedings in C.C. No. 15166 of 2020
pending on the file of the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No. 15 of 2020
of Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, stand
quashed."
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the
principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, I am of the
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18582
HC-KAR
considered opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings
would amount to an abuse of process of law, warranting
interference by this Court in the present petition.
14. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.50676/2023 arising
out of Crime No.258/2022 registered by the 1st respondent - Police
for offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC on the file of the
XXIX ACMM, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, insofar as the petitioner is
concerned are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
Srl.
