Karnataka High Court
Vinay P vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 315 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. VINAY P
S/O BASAVANTHAIAH S
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.48 1ST MAIN, 1ST STAGE
KANDAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE
SRIRAMPURA
KUVEMPUNAGAR
MYSURU 570023
NAME AS PER AADHAR
VINAY P B
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN S/O BASAVANTHAIAH S.
AYUB
DESHNUR
Location: HIGH
2. BASAVANTHAIAH
COURT OF S/O SHIVALINGAIAH POOJARI
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
DHARWAD
BENCH R/AT NO.48 1ST MAIN, 1ST STAGE
KANDAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE
SRIRAMPURA,
KUVEMPUNAGAR
MYSURU 570023
NAME AS PER AADHAR
BASAVANTAYYA S PUJARI
S/O SHIVALUNGAYYA PUJARI.
3. RATHNAMMA
W/O BASAVANTHAIAH
R/AT NO.48 1ST MAIN, 1ST STAGE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
KANDAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE
SRIRAMPURA,
KUVEMPUNAGAR
MYSURU - 570 023.
NAME AS PER AADHAR
S M RATHNAMMA
W/O BASAVANATHAYYA
ADDRESS PETITONER NO.1 TO AS PER ADHAR
NO.48 1ST MAIN,1ST STAGE
KANDAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE
SRIRAMPURA
KUVEMPUNAGAR
MYSURU - 570 023.
4. SRIVIDYA
W/O PRAVEEN KUAMR M P
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.48 1ST MAIN
1ST STAGE KANDAYANAGARA
2ND STAGE SIRAMPURA
KUVEMPUNGARA
MYSURU 570 023.
AS PER AADHAR
SRIVIDYA P B
W/O PRAVEEN KUAMR M P
R/AT NO.32/1 3RD A CROSS
OPP. MURALIKRISHNA SCHOOL
GOWDANAPALYA
SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD
BANGALROE SOUTH - 560 061.
5. PRAVEEN
S/O K S PRAKASH
AGED AOBUT 40 YEARS
R/AT 2ND STAGE,
SRIRMPURA
MYSORE DISTRICT 570 023
AS PER AADHAR
M P PRAVEEN KUMAR
S/O K S PARAKASH
NO.70 NEW NO.40, 1ST FLOOR,
5TH A CROSS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
HANUMAGIRI NAGAR ,
CHIKKSANDRA
BANGALORE SOUTH - 560 061.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K C.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY MYSURU CITY
WOMEN POLICE STATION
MYSORE DISTRICT
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-01.
2. MALLAVVA VINAYA P
W/O VINAYA P
AGED AOBUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO.48 1ST MAIN, 1ST STAGE
KANDAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE
SRIRAMPURA,
KUVEMPUNAGAR
MYSURU - 570 023.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1
SRI. ROHAN S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS)
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.107/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 85, 351(3), 352, 3(5) OF BNS AND SECTION 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT 1961 BY MYSURU CITY WOMEN POLICE, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF 7TH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Div) AND JMFC
COURT, MYSURU.
THIS PETITION IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10.07.2025
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CAV ORDER
In this petition, petitioners seek quashing of the impugned
FIR in Crime No. 107/24 registered by the 1st respondent - Mysuru
City Women Police for offences punishable under Sections 85,
351(3), 352 r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the D.P.Act and
for other reliefs.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
HCGP for 1st respondent as well as learned counsel for 2nd
respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
2nd respondent- de facto complainant is the wife of 1st petitioner
and their marriage having been solemnized on 14.02.2019, a
female child was born out of their wedlock. Petitioner Nos..2 & 3
are the parents of petitioner No.1, while petitioner No.4 is his sister
and petitioner No.5 is the husband of petitioner No.4.
4. Petitioner No.1 instituted matrimonial proceedings in
M.C.No. 497/2024 against the 2nd respondent seeking for divorce
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
on the grounds of cruelty, desertion, etc., and the same is pending
adjudication. Subsequently, on 24.07.2024, 2nd respondent
instituted Domestic Violence proceedings against the petitioners
herein in Crl.Misc.No.1473/24 under the Prevention of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed
one more petition on 14.10.2024 against petitioner No.1 under
Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 125 Cr.P.C) in Crl.Misc.
No.848/2024 and both the aforesaid proceedings filed by the 2nd
respondent are being contested by the petitioners and pending
adjudication before the respective courts.
5. Subsequently, on 22.10.2024, the 2nd respondent filed the
impugned complaint registered as an FIR in Crime No.107/2024
against the petitioners - accused Nos. 1 to 5 for offences
punishable under Sections 85, 351(3), 352 r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The 2nd
respondent has also filed an application dated 17.12.2024 in the
aforesaid M.C.No.497/2024 seeking interim maintenance against
the petitioner No.1, which is also pending adjudication.
6. The aforesaid undisputed facts and circumstances clearly
establish that in the light of earlier matrimonial proceedings in
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
M.C.No.497/2024, domestic violence proceedings in
Crl.Misc.No.1473/2024 and maintenance proceedings in Crl.Misc.
No.848/2024, the subsequent impugned complaint and FIR are
clearly an attempt to convert an essentially, predominantly and
overwhelmingly matrimonial dispute between 2nd respondent and
petitioner No.1 into the impugned criminal proceedings by giving
the same into criminal flavor/ texture/ color which is clearly
impressible in law. It is also pertinent to note that the 2nd
respondent had left the matrimonial home and was residing with
her parents, much prior to the institution of M.C.No.497/2024 by the
petitioner No.1, in which proceedings as well as in the Domestic
Violence and maintenance proceedings, the allegations made in
the impugned complaint are conspicuously absent, thereby
indicating that the impugned complaint and FIR is an afterthought
and filed with an intention of harassing and intimidating the
petitioners and in order to arm twist them.
7. It is an undisputed fact that the 2nd respondent lodged the
impugned complaint after institution of M.C.No.497/2024 by
petitioner No.1 and subsequent to domestic violence and
maintenance proceedings supra, is sufficient to show that the
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
impugned complaint is nothing but a counterblast to the aforesaid
proceedings pending between the parties. In addition thereto, a
perusal of the impugned complaint will indicate that except making
vague, omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners,
specific instances and material particulars/details are neither made
out nor disclosed or forthcoming in the impugned complaint so as
to incriminate the petitioners for the offences alleged against them.
It is therefore clear that the impugned complaint and FIR are
nothing but an abuse of process of law warranting interference in
the present petition.
8. Under identical circumstances, in the case of Dara
Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana - (2025) 3 SCC 735,
the Apex Court held as under:-
7. Further, Section 3 of the Dowry Act deals with
penalty for giving or taking dowry. It states that any
person who engages in giving, taking, or abetting the
exchange of dowry, shall face a punishment of
imprisonment for a minimum of five years and a fine of
not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the
dowry, whichever is greater.
18. Section 4 of the Dowry Act talks of penalty for
demanding dowry. It states that any person demanding
dowry directly or indirectly, from the parents or other
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
relatives or guardians of a bride or bridegroom shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than six months, but which may extend to two
years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand
rupees.
19. The issue for consideration is whether, given
the facts and circumstances of the case and after
examining the FIR, the High Court was correct in refusing
to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings against the
appellants arising out of FIR No. 82 of 2022 dated 1-2-
2022 under Section 498-AIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Act.
20. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the
allegations made by Respondent 2 are vague and
omnibus. Other than claiming that Appellant 1 harassed
her and that Appellants 2 to 6 instigated him to do so,
Respondent 2 has not provided any specific details or
described any particular instance of harassment. She has
also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in
which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the
FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.
21. Further, the record reveals that Respondent 2
on 3-10-2021 left the matrimonial house leading
Appellant 1 to file a police complaint on 5-10-2021. When
the police officials traced her, Respondent 2 addressed a
letter dated 11-11-2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting to close the
complaint made by Appellant 1. In the said letter,
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
Respondent 2 admitted that she left her matrimonial
house after quarrelling with Appellant 1 as she was
talking to a person by name Govindan over the phone for
the past ten days continuously. She further admitted that
Appellant 1 was taking good care of her. She also stated
that she will not engage in such actions in future. Despite
that, in 2021 itself, Respondent 2 once again left the
matrimonial house leaving Appellant 1 and also her minor
children.
22. Losing hope in the marriage, Appellant 1
issued a legal notice to Respondent 1 seeking divorce by
mutual consent on 13-12-2021. Instead of responding to
the said legal notice issued by Appellant 1, Respondent 2
lodged the present FIR No. 82 of 2022 on 1-2-2022
registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda
under Section 498-AIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Act.
23. Given the facts of this case and in view of the
timing and context of the FIR, we find that Respondent 2
left the matrimonial house on 3-10-2021 after quarrelling
with Appellant 1 with respect to her interactions with a
third person in their marriage. Later she came back to her
matrimonial house assuring to have a cordial relationship
with Appellant 1. However, she again left the matrimonial
house. When Appellant 1 issued a legal notice seeking
divorce on 13-12-2021, the present FIR came to be
lodged on 1-2-2022 by Respondent 2. Therefore, we are
of the opinion that the FIR filed by Respondent 2 is not a
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure
intended to settle scores with Appellant 1 and his family
members.
24. The learned counsel for Respondent 1 State
contended that a prima facie case was made out against
the appellants for harassing Respondent 2 and
demanding dowry from her. However, we observe that
the allegations made by Respondent 2 in the FIR seem to
be motivated by a desire for retribution rather than a
legitimate grievance. Further, the allegations attributed
against the appellants herein are vague and omnibus.
25. Respondent 2 has not contested the present
case either before the High Court or this Court.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Respondent 2 has not
only deserted Appellant 1 but has also abandoned her
two children as well, who are now in the care and custody
of Appellant 1. The counsel for the appellants has
specifically submitted that Respondent 2 has shown no
inclination to re-establish any relationship with her
children.
26. Insofar as Appellants 2 to 6 are concerned, we
find that they have no connection to the matter at hand
and have been dragged into the web of crime without any
rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that
no substantial and specific allegations have been made
against Appellants 2 to 6 other than stating that they used
to instigate Appellant 1 for demanding more dowry. It is
also an admitted fact that they never resided with the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
couple, namely, Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 and their
children. Appellants 2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal,
Andhra Pradesh. Appellants 4 to 6 live in Nellore,
Bengaluru and Guntur, respectively.
27. A mere reference to the names of family
members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial
dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active
involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-
recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that
there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of
the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of
a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping
accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularised allegations cannot form the basis for
criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in
such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the
legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of
innocent family members. In the present case, Appellants
2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1
have been living in different cities and have not resided in
the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 2
herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal
prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the
process of the law in the absence of specific allegations
made against each of them.
28. In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant
and his wife i.e. the second respondent herein resided at
Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where he was working in Southern
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
Railways. They were married in the year 2015 and soon
thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the second
respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore, it
cannot be believed that there was any harassment for
dowry during the said period or that there was any
matrimonial discord. Further, the second respondent in
response to the missing complaint filed by the first
appellant herein on 5-10-2021 addressed a letter dated
11-11-2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting for closure of the
said complaint as she had stated that she had left the
matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a quarrel
with Appellant 1 because of one Govindan with whom the
second respondent was in contact over telephone for a
period of ten days. She had also admitted that she would
not repeat such acts in future. In the above conspectus of
facts, we find that the allegations of the second
respondent against the appellants herein are too far-
fetched and are not believable.
29. We find that the High Court noted that there
were also allegations against Respondent 2 and
matrimonial disputes are pending between the parties.
Therefore, the High Court came to the conclusion that
custodial interrogation of the appellants was not
necessary and protected the personal liberty of the
appellants directing the investigating officer not to arrest
the appellants till the completion of the investigation and
filing of the charge-sheet. Albeit the said findings and
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
observations, the High Court ultimately refused to quash
the criminal proceedings against the appellants.
30. The inclusion of Section 498-AIPC by way of
an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a
woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift
intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as
there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes
across the country, accompanied by growing discord and
tension within the institution of marriage, consequently,
there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions
like Section 498-AIPC as a tool for unleashing personal
vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife.
Making vague and generalised allegations during
matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will lead to the
misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use
of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family.
Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-
AIPC against the husband and his family in order to seek
compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife.
Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned
against prosecuting the husband and his family in the
absence of a clear prima facie case against them.
31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any
woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has
been contemplated under Section 498-AIPC 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
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a
counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage
sought by the first appellant, husband of the second
respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498-AIPC
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.
32. In the above context, this Court 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] observed as follows :
(SCC p. 698, para 12)
"12. There has been an outburst of
matrimonial disputes 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
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
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."
33. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7
SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] held that 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 the 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
scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
34. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the
impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by Respondent 2 was
initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and
grudges against Appellant 1 and his family members i.e.
Appellants 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand
falls within Category (7) of illustrative parameters
highlighted in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . Therefore,
the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising
the powers available to it under Section 482CrPC and
thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by
continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
35. We, accordingly allow the appeal and set aside
the impugned order of the High Court dated 16-2-2022
[Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, 2022 SCC
OnLine TS 3561] in Criminal Petition No. 1479 of 2022 filed
under Section 482CrPC. Criminal Petition No. 1479 of 2022
under Section 482CrPC shall accordingly stand allowed.
FIR No. 82 of 2022 dated 1-2-2022 registered with
Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda under Section 498-
AIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act against
Appellants 1 to 6, charge-sheet dated 3-6-2022 filed in the
Court of 1st Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad
and the trial pending in the Court of 1st Additional Junior
Civil Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Malkajgiri against the appellants herein shall accordingly
stand quashed.
9. So also, in the case of Digambar v. State of
Maharashtra - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836, the Apex Court held
as under:-
29. It can thus be seen that this Court has held
that when the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a
case against the accused, the High Court would be
justified in quashing the proceedings. Further, it has been
held that where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR
and the evidence collected in support of the same do not
disclose any offence and make out a case against the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
accused, the Court would be justified in quashing the
proceedings.
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.
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
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
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.
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
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
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 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."
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
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.
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.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
10. In the case of Ghanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of
Delhi) - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301, the Apex Court held as
under:-
9. We have heard Learned counsel for the parties
and have carefully perused the material on record.
10. A perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations
made by the complainant are that in the year 1999, the
Appellant inflicted mental and physical cruelty upon her
for bringing insufficient dowry. The Complainant refers to
few instances of such atrocities, however the allegations
are generic, and rather ambiguous. The allegations
against the family members, who have been
unfortunately roped in, is that they used to instigate the
Appellant husband to harass the Complainant wife, and
taunted the Complainant for not bringing enough dowry;
however, there is no specific incident of harassment or
any evidence to that effect. Similarly, the allegations
against the five out of six sisters that they used to insult
the Complainant and demanded dowry articles from her,
and upon failure beat her up, but there is not even a
cursory mention of the incident. An allegation has also
been made against a tailor named Bhagwat that he being
a friend of the Appellant instigated him against the
Complainant, and was allegedly instrumental in blowing
his greed. Such allegations are merely accusatory and
contentious in nature, and do not elaborate a concrete
picture of what may have transpired. For this reason
alone, and that the evidence on record is clearly
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
inconsistent with the accusations, the version of the
Complainant seems implausible and unreliable. The
following observation in K. Subba Rao v. State of
Telangana Represented by Its Secretary, Department of
Home2, fits perfectly to the present scenario:
"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."
11. As regards the Appellant, the purportedly
specific allegations levelled against him are also obscure
in nature. Even if the allegations and the case of the
prosecution is taken at its face value, apart from the bald
allegations without any specifics of time, date or place,
there is no incriminating material found by the
prosecution or rather produced by the complainant to
substantiate the ingredients of "cruelty" under
section 498A IPC, as recently observed in the case
of JaydedeepsinhPravinsinhChavda v. State of
Gujarat3 and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh4.
The Complainant has admittedly failed to produce any
medical records or injury reports, x-ray reports, or any
witnesses to substantiate her allegations. We cannot
ignore the fact that the Complainant even withdrew her
second Complaint dt. 06.12.1999 six days later on
12.12.1999. There is also no evidence to substantiate the
purported demand for dowry allegedly made by the
Appellant or his family and the investigative agencies in
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
their own prudence have not added sections 3 & 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to the chargesheet.
12. In this respect, the Sessions Court has applied
its judicial mind to the allegations in the FIR & the
material on record, and has rightly discharged the
Appellants of the offences under section 498A & 34 IPC.
Notwithstanding the said observation by the Sessions
Court that the possibility of false implication cannot be
ruled out, the discharge of the Appellant merely because
the Complainant is a police officer is erroneous and
reflects poorly on the judicial decision making, which
must be strictly based on application of judicial principles
to the merits of the case. On the other hand, the High
Court vide the Impugned Order has traversed one step
further and overtly emphasised that simply because the
Complainant is a police officer, it cannot be assumed that
she could not have been a victim of cruelty at the hands
of her husband and in-laws. We agree with the sensitive
approach adopted by the High Court in adjudicating the
present case, however a judicial decision cannot be
blurred to the actual facts and circumstances of a case. In
this debate, it is only reasonable to re-iterate that the
Sessions Court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction
and the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction
under section 482 Cr.P.C, must delve into the material on
record to assess what the Complainant has alleged and
whether any offence is made out even if the allegations
are accepted in toto. In the present case, such scrutiny of
the allegations in the FIR and the material on record
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
reveals that no prima facie is made out against the
Appellant or his family. It is also borne from the record
that the divorce decree of their marriage, has already
been passed, and the same has never been challenged
by the Complainant wife, and hence has attained finality.
Upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and
that the alleged incidents pertain to the year 1999 and
since then the parties have moved on with their
respective lives, it would be unjust and unfair if the
Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a
trial.
13. It is rather unfortunate that the Complainant
being an officer of the State has initiated criminal
machinery in such a manner, where the aged parents-in-
law, five sisters and one tailor have been arrayed as an
accused. Notwithstanding the possibility of truth behind
the allegations of cruelty, this growing tendency to misuse
legal provisions has time and again been condemned by
this Court. The observations in Dara Lakshmi
Narayana v. State of Telangana, Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhandaptly captures this concern.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the
principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgments, I am of the
considered opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings
qua the petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37986
CRL.P No. 315 of 2025
HC-KAR
and consequently, the impugned proceedings deserve to be
quashed.
12. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned complaint and FIR in Crime No. 107/24
registered by the 1st respondent - Police for offences punishable
under Sections 85, 351(3), 352 r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section
4 of the D.P.Act qua the petitioners are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
Srl.
