[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Koushik M S vs The Station House Officer on 21 February, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8591 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

1 . SRI KOUSHIK M.S.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O LATE M.C.SUBBAIAH
R/A NO.1154, 2ND CROSS,
PADUVANA ROAD, 4TH STAGE,
T.K.LAYOUT, KUVEMPUNAGAR,
MYSURU - 570 023.

2 . SMT.KAMALAKSHI B.P.,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
W/O LATE M.C.SUBBAIAH
R/A NO.1154, 2ND CROSS,
PADUVANA ROAD, 4TH STAGE,
T.K.LAYOUT, KUVEMPUNAGAR,
MYSURU - 570 023.
... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI M.C.RAVI KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN'S POLICE STATION,
2

THYAGARAJA NAGAR,
BANASHANKARI II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 070
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. SMT.ADVIKA KAVYA PARALAKOTI
W/O KAUSHIK M.S.,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2, 1ST FLOOR,
1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
2ND BLOCK,
GRUHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
KAMALANAGAR
BASAVESHWARNAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI THUSHANATH C.V., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.19305/2024 PENDING ON FILE OF THE HON'BLE XXXVII
ADDL. CMM BENGALURU WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF
CR.NO.256/2023 OF BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU, FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 323, 504, 34
OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT.
3

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 31.10.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 stands at the doors of

this Court calling in question the proceedings in CC.No.19305 of

2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323,

504 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

2.1. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The accused no.1

/ petitioner no.1 is the husband and the petitioner

no.2 / accused no. 2 is the Mother-in-law. The 1st petitioner and

the complainant get married on 19-01-2020. The relationship

between the two appears to have turned sore immediately owing to

certain compatibility issues. However, a male child was born from
4

the wedlock on 05-09-2021. The 2nd respondent/complainant is said

to have moved out of the matrimonial house to her parents' house

after the birth of the child. The 1st petitioner registers a petition for

divorce before the concerned Family Court at Mysore, seeking

annulment of marriage in M.C.No.78 of 2022. However, the 2nd

respondent/complainant files a petition in M.C.No.799 of 2022

seeking restitution of conjugal rights. During the subsistence of the

aforesaid two proceedings, it is the averment in the petition that

the complainant comes to the matrimonial house when the accused

nos.1 and 2 were not in the house, breaks open the lock,

dismantles the CCTV and enters the house. It is on this score the

mother-in-law/2nd petitioner has registered a private complaint,

which is now pending consideration at the hands of the concerned

Court in C.C.No.10132 of 2022.

2.2. The 2nd respondent/complainant then institutes a civil

suit in O.S.No.199 of 2023 seeking an injunctory relief against the

husband/1st petitioner restraining him from contracting the second

marriage. In the said proceeding, an application is filed by the 1st

petitioner/husband under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking
5

closure of the proceedings, as that was a suit that was not even

entertainable. The complainant then files Criminal Miscellaneous

No.16 of 2023 before the concerned Court invoking the provisions

of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. That is challenged before this

Court in a separate petition W.P.No.14399 of 2023 and there is an

interim order of stay operating against all the members of the

family except the husband.

2.3. When things stood thus, the complainant registers a

complaint before the jurisdictional police on 20-08-2023. The

jurisdictional police, on the complaint so registered, issues notice

to the petitioners and calls them for counselling. When the

counselling fails, the police register a crime on 13-09-2023, though

the complaint was registered on 20-08-2023. It then becomes a

crime in Crime No.256 of 2023 for the afore-quoted offences. The

police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against two

only, the mother-in-law and the husband. The filing of the charge

sheet is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject

petition.
6

3. Heard Sri M C Ravi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for

petitioners, Sri B N Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public

Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Thushanath C V,

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

vehemently contend that, not one but several proceedings are

instituted by the wife against the husband and the mother-in-law,

all bringing out frivolous allegations that happen in the day to day

matrimonial life in a family. The learned counsel would submit that

the complainant goes to the parental house for delivery and does

not return, but files a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in

Bangalore. That way several proceedings are pending against each

other. Not stopping at that, when settlement did not come about

even before the police, the police had to register the crime for the

afore-quoted offences. The learned counsel submits that, a perusal

at the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet would not

indicate any offence, much less, the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 323 and 504 of the IPC .
7

5. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent would vehemently refute the submission in contending

that the ingredients brought out in the complaint are particular

overt acts against each of the persons. The husband and the

mother-in-law have been instrumental in torturing the wife and

driving her away from the house on demand of dowry. When the

demand of dowry did not get fulfilled, she was asked not to come

back to the matrimonial house and therefore she was forced to

come into the house and for the said act the crime is registered and

is being tried before the jurisdictional Court. With all these factors,

the learned counsel submits it becomes a matter of trial for the

petitioners to come out clean.

6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor also would

toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent/complainant and would contend that there are in fact

allegations that would touch upon the ingredients of all the offences

and seeks dismissal of the petition.
8

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

8. Since the entire issue has now triggered from the subject

complaint, it becomes necessary to notice a little history to the said

complaint. The relationship between the parties to the lis is not in

dispute. About 4 or 5 proceedings have sprung prior to the

registration of the impugned complaint. The complaint is dated

20-08-2023, but the crime is registered on 13-09-2023. What

happens in the interregnum is talks of settlement before the police

station, as directed by the Apex Court in the case of LALITA

KUMARI v. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in

(2014) 2 SCC 1. When the settlement talks or reconciliation

efforts made out before the police station failed, the police register

a crime in Crime No. 256 of 2023. The crime is, on a complaint so

registered by the complainant. The complaint reads as follows:

Date: 20/08/2023

The Station House Officer / The Inspector of police,
9

Basavangudi Women's Police Station,
Thyagaraja Nagar, Banashankari II Stage,
Bengaluru - 560070

From,

Name: Smt. Advika Kavya Parlakoti
W/O: Koushik M.S.
Age: 28 years
Address: No. 2, 1st Floor, 1st main,
1st Cross, 2nd Block, Gruhalakshmi Layout,
Kamalanagar, Basaveshwarnagar,
Bangalore - 560 079.

Mobile No: 9591023966

Respected Sir/Madam,

Subject-Filing a complaint to register a Case against (for ill
treatment and Demanding Dowry, Harassing Physically and
mentally, and threatening):

My Husband: Koushik M.S.
My Mother-in-Law: Kamalakshi B.P.

Both are R/at. No. 1154,
2nd Cross, Paduvana Road,
4th Stage, T.K. Layout,
Kuvempunagar,
Mysore-570023

1) My Husband's Uncle: Keshava B.P.
2) My Husband's Aunt: Bhagyavathi (W/o Keshava B.P.)
3) My Husband's Cousin: Lavi Subhaiah (S/o Keshava B.P.)
4) My Husband's Cousin: Likith Somaiah (S/o Keshava B.P.)
5) My Husband's Uncle: BP Bassappa
6) My Husband's Cousin: BB Dixit (Sanju) (S/o Bassappa)
Residing at Mysore
7) My Husband's Uncle: BP Harish

All 1 to 5 & 7 Residing at Kattemadu Village
Kattemadu Post, Madikeri Taluk
Coorg District
10

Coorg-571201

8) My Husband's Aunt: Radha
9) My Husband's Cousin: Shruthi Jashwanth (D/o Radha Nanda
Kumar)

10) My Husband's Aunt: Bhagirathi Kariappa
Residing at Bangalore

8 and 9 Residing at # 307, Dattatri Niliya 1st stage, 5th cross,
Gayathri Puram, Ward No: 39, Mysore - 570019.

I, Advika Kavya Parlakoti W/o Koushik M.S., reside at the said
above address with my Parents and my Son currently. I got
married to Koushik M.S. on 19/01/2020. My wedding was
arranged by my Parents in a very respectful manner, following
all the customs and rituals of the Hindu tradition at Raitha
Bhavan, Kushalnagar, Kodagu.

After my Marriage I was residing in my matrimonial home
(Address: No. 1154, 2nd Cross, Paduvana Road, 4th Stage, T.K.
Layout, Kuvempunagar, Mysore-570023) with my Husband and
my Mother-in-Law. I came my Parents home in the Last week of
March 2022.

I have got one Son aged 2 Yrs. I am pursuing my Education.

Sir/Madam, my wedding was arranged by my Parents in a very
respectful manner, Our Engagement was held at Kalyani Hotel
at Mysore and all the expenses was borne by my Parents only.
After the Engagement my Husband and my Mother-in-Law and
all their relatives (Above mentioned) Started demanding for
conducting our marriage in a Splendor way by giving Gold
Ornaments and Silver Items and organizing the marriage in a
Grand Scale and having no other option my parents had conduct
our marriage in accordance to their demands for which my
parents had to borrow loans.

Sir/Madam, After my Marriage my Husband and my Mother-in-
Law took care of me well for about 4 months and later my
Husband and my Mother-in-Law have been Torturing, Abusing,
and Harassing me Physically, Verbally and Mentally. They
always showed their Dominance on me and further they would
11

tell me that I had to listen and live my life according to what
they say. My Husband is a Rude, Dominating, Manipulative
Person and he never showed respect or love towards me as a
Husband and he never Hesitated to Degrade me and Abuse me
with Vulgar words.

My Husband Drinks and Physically Hits me and uses Vulgar
Words at home.

My Husband doesn't fulfill his Duties/Responsibilities as a
Husband. He doesn't allow me to call my Parents and even my
Parents should not call me and he doesn't allow me to go to my
Parents home and doesn't allow my parents to visit me.

My Mother-in-Law brain washes my Husband and my Husband
listening to her words and without knowing the fact or without
allowing me to speak he hits me and scolds me with very bad
words. He would always live in accordance to his mother's words
and would not come and was avoiding me very often. Moreover
my mother-in-law and my husband and my husband's cousins
(above all) are very superstitious and they started to perform
Agora Bali and other Black Magic Poojas against me so that I,
myself go out of the house within 48 days and when I asked as
to why they were doing liken this they told me that I had not
brought sufficient money at the time of my marriage and they
wanted more money, jewellery a Royal Enfield Bike and a
immovable property at Bangalore. But, my parents had given
Rs.10 Lakhs even after my marriage as per their demands to
start his business. But also they were not satisfied with this and
they wanted more money. They told me that they were
performing the Black Magic so that I go out of the house and my
Husband could marry another women who would get more
money and property.

Sir/Madam, as my Father-in-Law has expired my Husband and
my mother-in-law seek support from My Husband's Uncle:
Keshava for every thing and my Husband's Uncle Keshava who
is taking care of my husband's coffee plantation would always
degrade me and speak to me and he would always insult me
saying that I have not brought sufficient money at the time of
marriage and I am not fit for their family and would demand me
to ask my parents for more money.
12

My Husband's Aunt: Bhagyavathi (W/o Keshava) would support
and take my Mother-in-Law to places to meet the astrologists
with cruel intentions that I go out of their family alive or dead
and was always taunting me for my height and was saying that
I am not a good pair for my husband and was always searching
for bride for my husband even I was there in front of them.

My Husband's Cousin: Lavi Subhaiah (S/o Keshava) and My
Husband's Cousin: Likith Somaiah (S/o Keshava) would support
my Husband and they would force to eat pork and consume
Alcohol when I refuse my Husband's cousin would make fun of
me and harass me they would indirectly taunt my husband and
provoke my husband to hit me and my husband listening to
them he would abuse me and hit me in front of everyone.

My Husband's Cousin: BB Dixit (Sanju) was staying with us in
our Matrimonial home and he would always interfere in personal
matters and would always tell that I was not correct for my
Husband and he would look out for another girl for my Husband
and his father (My Husband's Uncle) BP Bassappa supported all
these when I complained these issue about his son to him and
he would in turn scold me and told me that I had to adjust and
go further he would torture me saying that I had not get
sufficient money from my parents home at the time of wedding,
so I could not speak anything which related to his family

My Husband's Uncle BP Harish would always call my Mother-in-
Law and would give her ideas to get me separated as he has
two daughters and my Husband chose me upon them, so Mr.
Harish had always bad impression about me.

My Husband's Aunt: Radha and My Husband's Cousin: Shruthi
Jashwanth would also take my Mother-in-Law to Black Magicians
at Mysore and performed Black Magic on me with bad intentions
for illegal gains, and giving ill ideas to my mother in law. They
were coming to my husband's place and through call they were
always taunting me and torturing me for not bring house in
Bangalore.

My Husband's Aunt: Bhagirathi Kariappa was forcing my
husband to consult lawyers so that he could me divorce as soon
as possible as her daughter was a divorcee and when I asked
13

her as to why she was doing this she would abuse me a lot with
filthy words.

When I was pregnant my Husband and my Mother-in-Law forced
me to get aborted my pregnancy and tortured me to take
prevention tablet for abortion later I did not accept that and all
his family member also told that it was not the right thing and
later my husband and my mother-in-law forced me to go to my
parents house, as I did not accept it they torture by not giving
me sufficient food and they gave me contaminated food and in
the view to protect my child and myself I had no other option
other than coming to my parents home

When I delivered my son they visited me and my son only one
in the Hospital and after lapse of 4 months my Husband and my
Mother-in-Law called me and asked me to come back home
(Matrimonial home) so on 07/02/2022 I, my son along with my
parents went to my Matrimonial home and at that time the door
was Locked (Matrimonial home) and I called them up they
asked me to wait in the mean time I had a duplicate key with
me so I tried opening but I could not open the door and later in
called my husband and informed him about this and my
husband sent a labour to open the key and we went inside.
From that time for about 1½ month we were together and later
they started forcing me to ask my parents for more money
(Additional Rs 10 Lakhs and a immovable property) and they
knew that my Father is running a Stationary shop and he cannot
afford so much of money every time they demanded and I told
that my father cannot afford so much of money and from that
time they did not provide me sufficient food and they gave me
contaminated food and they knew very well I was breast feeding
my son at that time and due to this I became very weak and
sick and I had to be admitted at Apollo Hospital at Mysore. In
the Hospital itself my Husband and my Mother-in-Law told me
on my face that they don't want me and my son and they forced
me to go to my parents home and having no other option I went
back to my Parents home. Now my Husband and my Mother-in-
Law are demanding for a 30 X 40 feet immovable property at
Kumara swamy Layout and Cash of Rs 10 Lakhs and a Royal
Enfield Bike and only then they would allow me and my son
inside my matrimonial home.
14

Further I would also want to keep you informed that they have
Registered a Case against me Case No: CC 10132/2022 at 3rd
JMFC at Mysore on the grounds that I had broke opened key to
enter into the house when I came to my matrimonial home upon
their guidance with my son and my parents.

Sir/Madam, I would like to keep you informed that I have
lodged a Matrimonial case under restitution of Conjugal Rights
against my Husband Case No: MC 799/2022 which is pending
before The Family Court Bangalore.

Sir/Madam, I also want to keep you informed that all that
Jewellery which was given to me at the time of my Marriage by
my parents is still with my Mother-in-Law and my Husband and
I also want to keep you informed that my Parents have spent
about 25 Lakhs alone for my Marriage Expense apart from this
my parents have given jewellery and silk sarees to me and
jewellery to my Husband and Cloths to my Husband and my
Mother-in-Law.

All my belongings and my jewellery and other essential things
are in the custody of my Husband and my Mother-in-Law.

When my husband had come to Bangalore for counseling to
Vanitha sahaya vani ask me for mutual Divorce as I denied for
Divorce he came out side when I was about take auto with my
mom and my son, my husband and his friend came in car my
husband punched me for 5 to 6 times from his hand to my
stomach. As I couldn't bear the pain I went to private hospital
and took medication and then again went to KC General hospital
for further treatment. Basavanagudi police had come to KC
General for taking statement. I am attaching all the documents
for your reference.

I have tried my level best to co-operate and save my matrimony
even after my husband and in-laws had crossed the limits of
torturing me for the sake of my future, my reputation, my
family's reputation, and the future of our son

I'm mentally traumatized and devastated by whatever has been
happening.
15

My health has been deteriorated due to mental stress and
trauma.

if anything happens to me or my son or and my parents, my
husband & my mother-in-law will be solely responsible.

I request you to Kindly Speak/Council with them & Solve the
Issues what I am facing.

I request you to Kindly provide me, my son and my parents
Protection because once they come to know that I have lodged
a Complaint against them they may Trouble me, my son and my
parents

I further request you to Kindly keep my Husband & his Family
Informed about this Complaint & these Issues.

I Humbly request you to kindly look into this matter and render
Justice to me.

Husband's Name: Koushik M.S. MOB No: 9449578377
Husband's Occupation: Business Man
Mother-in-Law's Name: Kamalakshi B.P. MOB No: 9449255198

MY Husband's Residential Address:: No. 1154,
2nd Cross, Paduvana Road, 4th Stage, T.K. Layout,
Kuvempunagar, Mysore - 570023

1) My Husband's Uncle: Keshava B.P. -Mob: 9480219898

2) My Husband's Aunt: Bhagyavathi (W/o Keshava B.P.)

Mob: 9611603944

3) My Husband's Cousin: Lavi Subhaiah (S/o Keshava B.P.)

Mob: 8277132288

4) My Husband's Cousin: Likith Somaiah (S/o Keshava B.P.)

Mob: 7760470607

5) My Husband's Uncle: BP Bassappa - Mob: 9731258572
16

6) My Husband's Cousin: B B Dixit (Sanju) (S/o Bassappa)
Mob: 9535295612 Residing at Mysore

7) My Husband's Uncle: BP Harish - Mob:9449374671

All 1 to 7 Residing at Kattemadu Village
Kattemadu Post, Madikeri Taluk
Coorg District
Coorg-571201

8) My Husband's Aunt: Radha - Mob: 9741765044

9) My Husband's Cousin: Shruthi Jashwanth -Mob: 9008511230

10) My Husband's Aunt: Bhagirathi Kariappa -Mob: 9449051929

Thanking You,

Yours Faithfully

Sd/-
(Advika Kavya Parlakoti)"

The complaint did not stop at dragging in, the husband or mother-

in-law, it dragged in every member of the family or even outsiders

who did not reside with the family. The police after investigation file

a charge sheet dropping every other member of the family from the

array of accused and retain only the husband and the mother-in-

law, as accused nos. 1 and 2. The summary of the charge sheet as

obtaining in column number 17 reads as follows:
17

"17. ೇ ನ ಸಂ ಪ ಾ ಾಂಶ

ಈ ೋ ಾ ೋಪಣ ಪ ಯ ಾಲಂ ನಂ-14 ರ ನ ಾ -1 ರವರು ಾಲಂ ನಂ-12 ರ ನ
ಎ1 ಆ ೋ$ಯನು% &'ಾಂಕ:19/01/2020 ರಂದು *ಂದೂ ಸುಪ+ ಾಯದಂ,ೆ ಮದು.ೆ/ಾ0ದು1 ಎ1,
ಎ2 ಆ ೋ$ಗಳ 4ೇ5 ೆಯಂ,ೆ ಮದು.ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ ಾ -2, ಾ -3 ರವರುಗಳ6 ವರದ 7ೆ/ಾ0
ಸು8ಾರು 350 9ಾ+ಂ :ನ% ಭರಣಗಳ6, ಸು8ಾರು 1 ೆ.<. 4ೆ=>, ಾ8ಾನುಗಳನು% ?ೕ5 ಸು8ಾರು 25
ಲ@ ರೂ ಖಚುC 8ಾ5 ಮದು.ೆ 8ಾ5 ೊ ರು,ಾ ೆ. ಮದು.ೆಯ ನಂತರ ಾ -1 ರವರು ಎ1, ಎ2
ಆ ೋ$ಗಳ Eೊ,ೆಯ Fೖಸೂರು ನಗರ, ಕು.ೆಂಪH ನಗರ, . ೆ IೇಔK, 4'ೇ ಹಂತ, ಪಡುವನ ರ ೆ,
2'ೇ ಾ+N, ಮ'ೆ ನಂ-1154 ರ .ಾಸ.ಾ0ರು.ಾUÉÎ, ಎ1, ಎ2 ಆ ೋ$ಗಳ6 ಾ -1 ರವರು
8ಾಡುವ ಸಣO ಪHಟ QRಾರಗಳಲೂ ತ¥ÀÄà ಕಂಡು *5ದು 4ೇವ C, ೊSೆಮುಂqÉ ಇ,ಾU& ೆಟ ೆಟ
ಶಬ1ಗ=ಂದ ¨ÉÊ¢zÀÝ®è ೇ ಎ1 ಆ ೋ$ಯು ಾ -1 ರವರ Eೊ,ೆಯ $+ೕW ಾಳ<Xಂದ
ನYೆದು ೊಳ> ೇ, ತವರು ಮ'ೆಯವರ Eೊ,ೆ ಸಂಪಕC Zೊಂದಲು [ಡ ೇ, ಮಧU]ಾನ 8ಾ5 ಾ -1
ರವ^9ೆ ZೊYೆಯುವHದು, 4ೈಯುವHದು 8ಾ5 8ಾನ ಕ.ಾ0, ೈ*ಕ.ಾ0 _ರುಕುಳ ?ೕ5ರು,ಾ ೆ
Zಾಗೂ ಎ2 ಆ ೋ$ಯ 8ಾತನು% ೇ= ೊಂಡು ಾ -1 ರವ^9ೆ ಜಗಳ 8ಾ5 ಮನ a9ೆ ಬಂದ
^ೕWಯ ¨ÉÊದು, ZೊYೆ&ರು,ಾ ೆ ಾ -1 ರವರನು% ಮ'ೆ[ಟು Zೋಗುವಂ,ೆ 8ಾಡಲು ಎ1, ಎ2
ಆ ೋ$ಗಳ6 8ಾಟಮಂತ+ ಪbEೆ 8ಾ5 ರುವHದು W=ದು ಾ -1 ರವರು ಈ ಬ9ೆc, ಪ+d% ದ1PÉÌ, ಎ1,
ಎ2 ಆ ೋ$ಗಳ6 ?ೕನು ನಮe ಅಂತ 9ೆ ತಕg ೊ ೆಯಲ, ?ೕನು ಮದು.ೆ ಸಮಯದ ನಮ9ೆ
ತೃ$ಕರ ವರದ 7ೆಯನು% ತಂ&ಲ, Zೆ:iನ ವರದ 7ೆ/ಾ0 ಹಣ, :ನ% ಭರಣಗಳ6 ಾಯj ಎ¤áÃjk
4ೈl, 4ೆಂಗಳm^ನ ¹Û ಾ ಯನು% ಪYೆದು ೊಂಡು 4ಾ ಆಗ ನಮe ಮ'ೆಯ ¤£ÀUÉ ಇರಲು ಅವ ಾಶ
8ಾ5 ೊಡು,ೇ.ೆಂದು ಒ,ಾX ಾ -1 ರವ^9ೆ 8ಾನ ಕ.ಾ0 'ೋವನು%ಂಟು 8ಾ5ರು,ಾ ೆ
Zಾಗೂ ಎ1 ಆ ೋ$ಯು [ 'ೆN 8ಾಡಲು ಾ -1, ಾ -2 ರವ^ಂದ 10 ಲ@ ರೂ ನಗದನು%
ಪYೆದು ೊಂ5ದ1®èzÉÃ ಎ2 ಆ ೋ$ಯ Eೊ,ೆಗೂ5 ಾ -1 ರವ^9ೆ ಇನು% Zೆ:iನ ಹಣ ಾg0 4ೇ5 ೆ
ಇ ರು,ಾ ೆ ಮತು ಾ -1 ರವರು ಗoCp ಇದ1 ಸಮಯದ , ಎ1, ಎ2 ಆ ೋ$ಗಳm ಾ -1
ರವರನು% ಅ4ಾಷr 8ಾ5 ೊಳ>ಲು ಒ,ಾX , ಾ -1 ರವ^9ೆ ಅವಶUಕ ಆZಾರ ?ೕಡ ೇ ಮ'ೆಯ
ಎIಾ ೆಲಸಗಳನು% 8ಾ5 _ರುಕುಳ ?ೕ5ದ1^ಂದ ಾ -1 ರವರು ಆ ೈ ೆ9ಾ0 ತವರು ಮ'ೆ9ೆ
ಬಂ&ದು1, ಮಗು ಹು : 4 Wಂಗಳ ನಂತರ ಾ -1 ರವರು ಗಂಡನ ಮ'ೆ9ೆ Zೋ0 .ಾಸ.ಾ0ದ19ಾಲೂ
ಸಹ ಎ1, ಎ2 ಆ ೋ$ಗಳ6 ಾ -1 ರವ^9ೆ Zೆ:iನ ವರದ 7ೆ/ಾ0 10 ಲ@ ಹಣ ಮತು ¹ÜgÁ¹Üಯನು%
ಪYೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬರುವಂ,ೆ _ರುಕುಳ ?ೕ5ರು,ಾ ೆ. ನಂತರ ಾ -1 ರವರು ಅ'ಾ ೋಗU ೆg ಈYಾ0ದ1
ಸಮಯದ ಎ1, ಎ2 ಆ ೋ$ಗಳ6 /ಾವH ೇ .ೈದU_ೕಯ ೌಲಭU, ಾಳ< ವ*ಸದ ಾರಣ ಾ -1
ರವರು ಆ ೈ ೆ9ಾ0 ಪHನಃ ತವರು ಮ'ೆ9ೆ ಬಂ&ದು1, ಆ ೋಗU ಸುuಾ^ ದ ನಂತರ ಾ -1 ರವರು ಎ1,
ಎ2 ಆ ೋ$ಗ=9ೆ .ಾಪN ಮ'ೆ9ೆ ಬರುWರುವH ಾ0 W= ಾಗ ಆ ೋ$ಗಳ6 30*40 ೈK,
ಾಯj ಎ¤áÃjk 4ೈl, 10 ಲ@ ಹಣ ತಂದ ೆ 8ಾತ+ ಮ'ೆ9ೆ ೇ^ಸುವH ಾ0 ಒ,ಾX ರು,ಾ ೆ
18

Zಾಗೂ &'ಾಂಕ:31/08/2023 ರಂದು ಾ -1, ಾ -2 ರವರು vಾUw ೌನa ಂx ಮು0 ೊಂಡು
ಬಸವನಗು5 yಾ7ೆಯ ಮುಂzಾಗದ ರ ೆಯ ?ಂWರು.ಾಗ ಎ1 ಆ ೋ$ಯು ಾ -1 ರವರ FೕIೆ
ೈಗ=ಂದ ಹIೆ 8ಾ5 ಅಪ ಾಧ.ೆಸ0ರುವHದು ತ?{ಾ ಾಲದ ದೃಢಪ ರುತ ೆ.

ಆದ1^ಂದ ಪ+ಕರಣದ ಎ1 ಆ ೋ$ಯ Qರುದ} ಕಲಂ-498(ಎ), 323, 504, ಐ$ , ಕಲಂ-3 &
4 5.$ ಆl ^ೕ,ಾU Zಾಗೂ ಎ2 ಆ ೋ$ಯ Qರುದ} ಕಲಂ-498(ಎ), 504, ಐ$ , ಕಲಂ-3 & 4 5.$
ಆl ^ೕ,ಾU ೋ ಾ ೋಪಣ ಪ ಯನು% 8ಾನU 'ಾU/ಾಲಯ ೆg ?.ೇ& ೊಂ5ರು,ೆ."

A perusal at the complaint would indicate that it is a glorified

version of a well-drafted complaint against every member of the

family or even outsiders. The glorification is restricted when the

police file charge sheet only against accused Nos.1 and 2. The

accused Nos.1 and 2 are alleged of several acts of demand of

dowry. The husband demanding Royal Enfield bike and a site and

when the same did not meet their demand, the accused are said to

have tortured the complainant.

9. A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet, at the first

blush, would indicate certain offences against the accused,

particularly against the husband. But if the backdrop of the

registration of the complaint and the filing of the charge sheet is

seen, it would undoubtedly mean that the wife has registered the
19

complaint only to arm twist the husband in many ways, as there

are several proceedings between the husband and the wife. First,

when the wife travels to Mysore to her parental house for delivery,

the husband registers a case in M.C.No.78 of 2022, barely after 2

years of marriage. Later, the wife never turns up, but she is said to

have registered a proceeding in Bangalore, seeking restitution of

conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in

M.C.No.799 of 2022. During the pendency of the proceedings for

the restitution of conjugal rights, it transpires that the 2nd

respondent went to enter the house of the petitioners and when

they were not in the house she broke open the house and other

things. A proceeding against the wife is registered by these

petitioners for certain offences which is pending before the

concerned Court. The wife then registers a petition invoking the

provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is still pending

consideration.

10. With all these proceedings pending, the wife, who is the

complainant comes to know that the parents are wanting to get the

husband married to someone else. It is then a suit is instituted by
20

the wife seeking an injunctory order that the husband should not

get married to anyone else in O.S.No.199 of 2023. After all these

efforts comes the impugned complaint. The complaint was sought

to be registered on 20-08-2023. What has happened after the said

date of bringing the complaint before the jurisdictional police is that

the police sought to resolve the dispute in terms of the judgment of

the Apex Court in the case of LALITA KUMARI supra. The 1st

petitioner appears before the police station, renders his statement

along with his advocate and again was asked to come to conciliation

on 28-08-2023. The 1st petitioner visits the police station and talks

of conciliation moved forward. The petitioner then appeared before

the conciliation officer of Mahila Sahayavani which was referred to

by the Basavanagudi police station. Here again the talks of

conciliation fail, it is then the crime comes to be registered after 23

days of the date on which the complainant wanted to register the

complaint.

11. With all these proceedings, the complaint and the charge

sheet not making out such offences that would become punishable

under Section 498A or 323 of the IPC, permitting further
21

proceedings would run foul of the judgments of the Apex Court,

plethora of them rendered from time to time, two of which, I deem

it appropriate to notice.

11.1 . The Apex Court in the case of P.V. KRISHNABHAT v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA1, has held as follows:

".... .... ....

14. Regarding the husband, it is evident that the
allegations against him are similarly vague and
unsubstantiated. The complainant has made generalized
accusations without furnishing specific instances of
misconduct. No specific allegations and neither any
material have come on record to show a prima facie
commission of the alleged offences of cruelty and dowry
demand. The couple had a love marriage and experienced a
blissful relationship during the initial years of their marriage, as
is admitted on record. This, coupled with the lack of material
evidence to support the allegations, leads to the conclusion that
no prima facie case of cruelty or dowry demand is made out
against the husband as well. Criminal proceedings cannot be
permitted to continue in the absence of sufficient
evidence to prima facie establish the commission of an
offense.

15. Further, as is evident from the record, the marriage
between the parties has been dissolved, with categorical
findings regarding cruelty meted out by the complainant against
the appellant-husband. The allegations made in the criminal
complaint, regarding dowry demand, cruelty, and harassment
have all been held to be baseless, false and frivolous. Though,
these are separate proceedings, but findings regarding the truth
and veracity of such serious allegations, as have been made by

1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 484
22

the complainant herein, become relevant in order to do justice
and avoid misuse of criminal justice system. The Family Court
has made categorical findings to hold that the allegations are
false and nothing has been produced to or prove any merit in
the allegations. Even in the criminal proceedings impugned
before us, nothing has come on record to show commission of
these alleged acts, even on a prima facie analysis. Once it has
been held that there is no merit or truthfulness to the
allegations made, then criminal proceedings on the very same
allegations cannot be allowed to continue and propagate misuse
of the criminal justice system.

16. Criminal law should not be used as a tool for
harassment or vendetta. The allegations in a criminal
complaint must be scrutinized with care to ensure that
they disclose a prima facie case before subjecting
individuals to the rigors of a criminal trial. The cases
involving allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC and
the DP Act often require a careful and cautious approach
to prevent misuse of the law. While the provisions are
intended to protect women from cruelty and dowry
harassment, they should not be used to settle personal
scores or pursue ulterior motives.

17. In the present case, the allegations against the
appellants were devoid of merit, manifestly frivolous and fail to
disclose a prima facie case. The continuation of criminal
proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of
the process of law and result in a miscarriage of justice.

18. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the criminal
proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and
4 of the DP Act against all the appellants are quashed."

11.2. The Apex Court in the case of MARAM NIRMALA v.

STATE OF TELANGANA2, has held as follows:

2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2913
23

"..... ..... .....

12. The appellant(s) herein are the mother-in-law and
father- in-law of respondent No. 2. They had filed a petition
under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the
proceedings instituted against them in C.C. No. 338/2023
pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
(Prohibition and Excise offence) at Nalgonda alleging offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with
Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.

13. By the impugned order, the said criminal petition has
been disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant(s) herein to
seek discharge in accordance with law. Hence, this appeal.

14. The case at hand pertains to allegations of
cruelty and dowry demand made by the respondent No. 2
against the appellant(s) herein. A bare perusal of the FIR
however, shows that the allegations made by respondent
No. 2 are vague and omnibus inasmuch as there is an
absence of any specific instance or occasion detailed with
particulars wherein the appellant(s) demanded dowry
from respondent No. 2 and on refusal of the same,
subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. The only
allegations levelled by respondent No. 2 against the
appellants herein are that subsequent to the birth of her
daughter, the conduct of her husband underwent a
change, which is stated to have been on account of the
alleged inducement exercised by the in-laws including
the appellant(s) herein for the purpose of demanding
additional dowry and that pursuant to the counselling
conducted at the Women Police Station, Nalgonda,
although the husband of respondent No. 2 and his family
assured that she would be treated properly, they
nevertheless continued to subject respondent No. 2 to
mental and physical cruelty.

15. We therefore find that the aforesaid allegations
levelled against the appellant(s), even if taken at their face
value, do not prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged
offences so as to warrant the initiation of criminal proceedings.
24

16. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for
the appellant(s) brought to our notice the judgment of this
Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of
Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 ("Dara Lakshmi Narayana") as
well as other judgments which squarely apply to this case. We
have perused the same.

17. This Court speaking through one of us (B.V.
Nagarathna, J.) in Dara Lakshmi Narayana, while dealing with
the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings instituted by the
respondent wife therein against her husband and in-laws who
were charged with offences punishable under Sections 498A of
the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961, held as
follows:

"27. A mere reference to the names of family
members in a criminal case arising out of a
matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations
indicating their active involvement should be nipped
in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of
judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to
implicate all the members of the husband's family
when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial
discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations
unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised
allegations cannot form the basis for criminal
prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such
cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the
legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of
innocent family members. In the present case,
Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of
Appellant 1 have been living in different cities and have not
resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and
Respondent 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into
criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the
process of the law in the absence of specific allegations
made against each of them.

xxx

matrimonial disputes across the country,
accompanied by growing discord and tension within
the institution of marriage, consequently, there has
been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like
Section 498-AIPC as a tool for unleashing personal
vendetta against the husband and his family by a
wife. Making vague and generalised allegations
during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will
lead to the misuse of legal processes and an
encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a
wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken
to invoke Section 498-A IPC against the husband and
his family in order to seek compliance with the
unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this
Court has, time and again, cautioned against
prosecuting the husband and his family in the
absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

xxx

31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any
woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been
contemplated under Section 498-A IPC should remain silent
and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating
any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our
aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case
like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the
petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first
appellant, husband of the second respondent herein, a
complaint under Section 498-A IPC is lodged by the latter.
In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly
for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in
the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry.
However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.

xxx

34. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the
impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by Respondent 2 was
initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and
grudges against Appellant 1 and his family members i.e.
Appellants 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand
falls within Category (7) of illustrative parameters
highlighted in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426].
Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not
26

exercising the powers available to it under Section 482CrPC
and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process
by continuing the criminal prosecution against the
appellants."

(underlining by us)

18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this
case, we find that the judgment of this Court in Dara Lakshmi
Narayana would apply. Hence, the impugned order of the High
Court is set aside. The proceedings instituted against the
appellant(s) in C.C. No. 338/2023 pending on the file of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise offence) at
Nalgonda stand quashed in relation to the appellants herein."

11.3. The Apex Court in the case of BELIDE SWAGATH

KUMAR v. STATE OF TELANGANA3, has held as follows:

"..... ..... .....

18. Section 498A of the IPC deals with offences
committed by the husband or relatives of the husband
subjecting cruelty towards the wife. The said provision reads as
under:

"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.-- Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years
and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.-- For the purpose of this section,
"cruelty" means--

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or

3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2890
27

health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or
is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand."

19. Further, Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act talk about the
penalty for giving or taking or demanding a dowry.

"3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.-- (1) If
any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or
takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less
than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of
such dowry, whichever is more.

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and
special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a
sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in
relation to,--

(a) presents which are given at the time of a
marriage to the bride (without any demand
having been made in that behalf):

Provided that such presents are entered in
a list maintained in accordance with the rules
made under this Act;

(b) presents which are given at the time of a
marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand
having been made in that behalf):

Provided that such presents are entered in
a list maintained in accordance with the rules
made under this Act:

Provided further that where such presents
are made by or on behalf of the bride or any
28

person related to the bride, such presents are of
a customary nature and the value thereof is not
excessive having regard to the financial status of
the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such
presents are given.

4. Penalty for demanding dowry.-- If any person
demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other
relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case
may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six
months, but which may extend to two years and with fine
which may extend to ten thousand rupees:

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and
special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a
sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six
months."

20. An offence is punishable under Section 498A of
the IPC when a husband or his relative subjects a woman
to cruelty, which may result in imprisonment for a term
extending up to three years and a fine. The Explanation
under Section 498A of the IPC defines "cruelty" for the
purpose of Section 498A of the IPC to mean any of the
acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b). The first limb of
clause (a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of
the IPC states that "cruelty" means any wilful conduct
that is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide. The second limb of clause (a) of the
Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that
cruelty means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature
as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman. Further,
clause (b) of the Explanation of Section 498A of
the IPC states that cruelty would also include harassment
of the woman where such harassment is to coerce her or
any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on account of
failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
demand.

21. Further, Section 3 of the DP Act deals with the
penalty for giving or taking dowry. It states that any
29

person who engages in giving, taking, or abetting the
exchange of dowry, shall face a punishment of
imprisonment for a minimum of five years and a fine of
not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the
dowry, whichever is greater. Section 4 of the DP Act talks
of penalty for demanding dowry. It states that any person
demanding dowry directly or indirectly, from the parents
or other relatives or guardians of a bride or bridegroom
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than six months, but which may extend
to two years and with fine which may extend to ten
thousand rupees.

22. The issue for consideration is whether, given the facts
and circumstances of the case and after examining the FIR and
the Complaint Case, the High Court was correct in refusing to
quash the ongoing criminal proceedings against the appellants
arising out of FIR No. 29 of 2022 dated 27.01.2022 and the
Complaint Case No. 1067 of 2022 under Section 498A of
the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.

23. Courts have to be extremely careful and
cautious in dealing with complaints and must take
pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases where the allegations have to be
scrutinized with greater care and circumspection in order
to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of
law. The allegations put forth by the complainant-
respondent No. 2 have been considered by us. In our
view, they reflect the daily wear and tear of marriage and
can, in no way, be categorised as cruelty. The act of the
accused-appellant of sending money back to his family
members cannot be misconstrued in a way that leads to a
criminal prosecution. The allegation that the accused-
appellant forced the complainant-respondent No. 2 to
maintain an excel sheet of all the expenses, even if taken
on the face value, cannot come under the definition of
cruelty. The monetary and financial dominance of the
accused-appellant, as alleged by the complainant-
respondent No. 2, cannot qualify as an instance of
cruelty, especially in the absence of any tangible mental
or physical harm caused. The said situation is a mirror
reflection of the Indian society where men of the
30

households often try to dominate and take charge of the
finances of the women but criminal litigation cannot
become a gateway or a tool to settle scores and pursue
personal vendettas. Furthermore, the other allegations of
the complainant-respondent No. 2 such as lack of care on
the part of the husband-the accused-appellant during
pregnancy and postpartum and constant taunts about her
after-birth weight, if accepted prima facie, at best reflect
poorly upon the character of the accused-appellant but
the same cannot amount to cruelty so as to make him
suffer through the process of litigation.

24. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations
made by the complainant-respondent No. 2 are vague and
omnibus. Other than claiming that the husband and his family
along with the accused-appellant herein mentally harassed her
with a demand of dowry, the complainant-respondent No. 2 has
not provided any specific details or described any particular
instance of harassment. Although she has alleged that an
amount totalling to Rupees One Crore was demanded by the
accused-appellant and his family members, the complainant-
respondent No. 2 has failed to put forth any evidence or
material on record to elaborate or substantiate the same.
Furthermore, the complainant-respondent No. 2 has
failed to impress the court as to how the said alleged
harassment has caused her any injury, mental or
physical. There has been no remote or proximate act or
omission attributed to the accused-appellant that
implicates him or assigns him any specific role in the said
FIR for the offence of 498A of the IPC. Merely stating that
the accused-appellant has mentally harassed the
complainant-respondent No. 2 with respect to a demand
of dowry does not fulfil the ingredients of Section 498A of
the IPC especially in the face of absence of any cogent
material or evidence on record to substantiate the said
allegations. The term "cruelty" cannot be established
without specific instances. The tendency of invoking
these sections, without mentioning any specific details,
weakens the case of prosecution and casts serious
aspersions on the viability of the version of the
complainant. Therefore, this Court cannot ignore the
missing specifics in an FIR which is the premise of
invoking criminal machinery of the State. In such cases
31

involving allegations of cruelty and harassment, there
would normally be a series of offending acts, which would
be required to be spelt out by the complainant against
perpetrators in specific terms to involve such
perpetrators into the criminal proceedings sought to be
initiated against them and therefore mere general
allegations of harassment without pointing out the
specifics against such persons would not be sufficient to
continue criminal proceedings.

25. In this regard, it would be apposite to rely on the
judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 ("Bhajan Lal") with particular reference to
paragraph 102 therein, where this Court observed:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of
the various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226
or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
have given the following categories of cases by way
of illustration wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive
list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
32

order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge."

26. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned
judicial dictum, we find that none of the offences alleged against
the accused-appellant herein is made out. In fact, we find
that the allegations of cruelty, mental harassment and
voluntarily causing hurt against the accused-appellant
herein have been made with a mala-fide intent with
vague and general allegations and therefore, the
33

judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and
particularly sub-paragraphs (1) and (7) of paragraph
102, extracted above, squarely apply to the facts of these
cases. It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice
to permit the present prosecution emanating from the
FIR and consequent Complaint Case No. 1067 of 2022 to
continue.

27. Furthermore, at this juncture, we find it appropriate
to quote the judgment of this Court in Dara Lakshmi
Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 wherein it
was observed:

xxx

30. The inclusion of Section 498-A IPC by way
of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty
inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family,
ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in
recent years, as there have been a notable rise in
matrimonial disputes across the country,
accompanied by growing discord and tension within
the institution of marriage, consequently, there has
34

been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like
Section 498-A IPC as a tool for unleashing personal
vendetta against the husband and his family by a
wife. Making vague and generalised allegations
during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will
lead to the misuse of legal processes and an
encouragement for use of arm-twisting tactics by a
wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken
to invoke Section 498-A IPC against the husband and
his family in order to seek compliance with the
unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this
Court has, time and again, cautioned against
prosecuting the husband and his family in the
absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any
woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been
contemplated under Section 498-A IPC should remain silent
and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating
any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our
aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case
like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the
petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first
appellant, husband of the second respondent herein, a
complaint under Section 498-A IPC is lodged by the latter.
In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant
mainly for the protection of a woman who is
subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home
primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property
or valuable security in the form of dowry. However,
sometimes it is misused as in the present case."."

(Emphasis supplied in each instance)

In the light of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court, as

quoted supra, permitting further proceedings against the petitioners

would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in

miscarriage of justice.
35

12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.19305 of 2024 pending on the

file of XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bengaluru qua the petitioners, stand quashed.

Pending application if any, also stand disposed, as a