Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 16.04.2026 vs Of on 22 May, 2026
2026:HHC:19064
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 161 of 2026
Reserved on: 16.04.2026
.
Date of Decision: 22.05.2025
Joginder Singh & others ...Petitioners
Versus
of
State of Himachal Pradesh and another ...Respondents
_____________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
rt
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioners : Mr S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate,
(through Video Conferencing) and
Mr Pawan Gautam, Advocate,
(present in the Court)
For the Respondents : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General for respondent No.1.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioners have filed the present petition under
Section 528 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(BNSS) for quashing of F.I.R. No. 0003 of 2025, dated 17.01.2025,
registered for the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 504 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), at
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
2
2026:HHC:19064
Women Police Station Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. and
consequential proceedings arising out of it.
.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present
petition are that the informant Simran Kaur/respondent No.2
was married to the petitioner Arjun Singh on 24.05.2023 as per
custom. The informant’s husband and her parents-in-law kept
of
her properly for about one month after her marriage.
Thereafter, they started harassing her. They asserted that she
rt
had not brought sufficient dowry from her parents. They started
insulting, taunting and passing sarcastic remarks to the
informant for not bringing sufficient dowry. They demanded
₹50,000/- from the informant’s parents. The informant’s
parents transferred ₹9000/- and ₹50,000/- to the bank account
of the informant’s husband in October 2023 and December 2023.
The accused demanded a motorcycle from the informant and
her father, and also a car worth ₹ 35 lakhs. When the informant
was unable to fulfil this demand, the accused gave beatings to
her on 24.06.2024. The informant sustained injuries, but she
was not taken to the hospital. The informant’s father visited her
matrimonial home and took her to the hospital for treatment.
The informant made a complaint to the Superintendent of
::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
3
2026:HHC:19064
Police, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., which was forwarded to
the Women Police Station, Chamba, District Chamba. The
.
matter was referred to the District Legal Services Authority,
Chamba, but the informant’s husband did not appear, and
proceedings for mediation could not proceed further. The
informant’s husband threatened to murder and grievously hurt
of
the informant and her parents. This conversation was recorded
by the informant on her mobile phone. The informant reported
rt
the matter to the police, but no action was taken. The informant
made a complaint to the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Chamba, District Chamba, who forwarded it to the
police. The police registered F.I.R. and investigated the matter.
3. The petitioners/accused have filed the present
petition for quashing of the FIR, asserting that the F.I.R. is an
abuse of the process of the law because all the family members
of the informant’s husband have been implicated with no
specific allegation and no specific role. Petitioner No.1 is the
informant’s father-in-law, who has retired from the Indian
Army and is not dependent upon his son. Petitioner No.2 is the
informant’s mother-in-law and is aged about 66 years. She has
recently undergone surgery. Petitioner No.3 is the informant’s
::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
4
2026:HHC:19064
brother-in-law, and he is residing separately. Petitioner No.4 is
the sister-in-law of the informant, whose husband had expired
.
on 28.06.2017. She is residing separately with her two children.
Petitioner No.5 is a married sister-in-law of the informant, and
she is residing at a different place with her family members.
Petitioners No. 6 and 7 are residing at a distance of about 25 km
of
from the informant’s matrimonial home with their family
members. The informant has falsely asserted that money was
rt
transferred to her husband’s account. The demand for Bullet
motorcycle and car is general in nature. The allegations in the
F.I.R., even if accepted to be correct, do not constitute the
commission of any offence. The Learned Magistrate had passed
a non-speaking order in violation of the principle of natural
justice. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be
allowed and the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings arising out
of the said F.I.R. be quashed.
4. I have heard Mr S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate (through
Video Conferencing) and Mr Pawan Gautam (present in the
Court), learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr Ajit Sharma,
learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State.
::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
5
2026:HHC:19064
5. Mr S.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have
.
been falsely implicated based on the general allegations made in
the FIR. These allegations are false, as is evident from the
statement of the account of the informant’s husband. The
learned Magistrate had not passed a speaking order while
of
ordering the investigation under Section 153(3) of Cr.P.C.
Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and
rt
F.I.R and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R.
be quashed.
6. Mr Ajeet Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General,
for the respondent/State, submitted that the matter is at the
initial stage. The police are investigating the matter and will file
a cancellation report if no case is made out. It is premature to
scuttle the investigation. Hence, he prayed that the present
petition be dismissed.
7. I have given a considerable thought to the
submissions at the bar and have gone through the records
carefully.
::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
6
2026:HHC:19064
8. The law relating to quashing of FIR was explained by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC
.
OnLine SC 7 as under: –
“7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned,
it is now more or less well settled as regards theprinciples to be applied by the court. In this regard, one
may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana
v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Courtof
has summarised some of the principles under which
FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the
following words:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
rt
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by thisCourt 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 give thefollowing categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwiseto secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined andsufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should beexercised.
(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::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
7
2026:HHC:19064cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an 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 acase against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only aof
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.
rt (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 a
private and personal grudge.” (emphasis added)
8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6)
would be of relevance to us in this case.
::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
8
2026:HHC:19064
In clause (1), it has been mentioned that 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, then
the FIR or the complaint can be quashed.
As per clause (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 dated by the Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and in
of
such a situation, the FIR can be quashed.
Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an
express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the
CrPC or the concerned Act under which the criminal
rt
proceedings are instituted, such proceedings can be
quashed.”
9. This position was reiterated in Ajay Malik v. State of
Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, wherein it was observed:
“8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising
its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC,
may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processesor to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are
neither controlled nor limited by any other statutoryprovision. However, given the broad and profound nature
of this authority, the High Court must exercise it
sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers areembedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing
the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of
process or where intervention is essential to uphold the
ends of justice.
9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of
several decades, has laid down the principles and
guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing
criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-
::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
9
2026:HHC:19064
empting the Prosecution from building its case before the
Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia,
contemplate the following situations : (i) the criminal
complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR.
represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima
facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature;
(v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus
allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle andcompound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)
10. The present petition is to be decided as per the
of
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
11. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
rt
Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 286:
2009 SCC OnLine SC 1693 that the Court has to see that
particulars of the offences committed by every accused and the
role played by the accused in committing the offences are given
in the complaint made to the police. It was observed: –
“9. To lodge a proper complaint, the mere mention of the
sections and the language of those sections is not the be-all
and end-all of the matter. What is required to be brought to
the notice of the court is the particulars of the offencecommitted by each and every accused and the role played by
each and every accused in committing that offence.
10. When we see the complaint, it is sadly vague. It does
not show which of the accused has committed what
offence, and what is the exact role played by these
appellants in the commission of the offence. It could be
said that something is against Rajesh, as the allegations
are made against him more precisely, but he is no more::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
10
2026:HHC:19064and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it
would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the
prosecution to continue against the aged parents of
Rajesh, the present appellants herein, on the basis of a.
vague and general complaint which is silent about the
precise acts of the appellants.” (Emphasis supplied)
12. Similarly, it was held in Abhishek v. State of M.P., 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1083: 2023 INSC 779 that the tendency of false
implication by way of general omnibus allegations, if left
of
unchecked, would result in the misuse of the process of law. It
was observed:rt
“13. Instances of a husband’s family members filing a
petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against
them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are
neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty
abound on this score. We may now take note of some
decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan
Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599],
this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation
where the High Court had refused to quash an FIR
registered for various offences, including Section 498A
IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required
determination was whether allegations made against the in-
laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable
to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein
concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC
and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the
husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that
false implications by way of general omnibus allegations
made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked,
would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of
that case, it was found that no specific allegations were
made against the in-laws by the wife, and it was held that
allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear
::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
11
2026:HHC:19064
allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse
of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal
trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe
scars upon the accused, and such an exercise ought to be
.
discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667],
this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the
husband and all his immediate relations is also not
uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It
was observed that the Courts have to be extremely careful and
cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take
of
pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases, such as allegations of harassment by the
husband’s close relations, who were living in different cities
and never visited or rarely visited the place where the
rt
complainant resided, would add an entirely different
complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised
with great care and circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184],
this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory
provisions and the language thereof for lodging a
complaint is not the ‘be all and end all’ of the matter, as
what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the
particulars of the offence committed by each and every
accused and the role played by each and every accused in the
commission of that offence. These observations were made
in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section
498A IPC.” (Emphasis supplied)
13 It was held in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 759:2024 INSC 369 that asking a person to face
criminal allegations without any specific instance of criminal
misconduct amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. It
was observed:
::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
12
2026:HHC:19064
“18. The plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet
papers indicates 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 fit to drop the proceedings against the
other members of the Appellants’ family. Thus, we are of
the view that the FIR lodged by Respondent No. 2 was
nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition & also
the domestic violence case.
of
25. 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 an
abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to
rt
subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to 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.” (Emphasis supplied)
14. It was further held that in matrimonial disputes, the
parents, including the close relatives, make a mountain out of a
molehill, and every matrimonial conduct amounting to nuisance
does not constitute cruelty. It was observed: –
“32. Many times, the parents, including the close
relatives of the wife, make a mountain out of a molehill.
Instead of salvaging the situation and making every
possible endeavour 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 the destruction of the marriage over trivial issues.
The first thing that comes to mind for the wife, her
parents and her relatives is the Police as if the Police is::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
13
2026:HHC:19064the panacea of all evil. No sooner does the matter reach
the Police than 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 of each other’s faults, to a certain bearable
extent, has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty
quibbles and trifling differences are mundane mattersand should not be exaggerated and blown out of
proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in
heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels mustof
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
rt
hyper-sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous
for the very institution of marriage. In matrimonial
disputes, the main sufferers are the children. The spousesfight with such venom in their hearts that they do not
think even for a second that if the marriage were to come
to an end, then what would be the effect on their
children? Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as theupbringing of the children is concerned. The only reason
why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole
issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedingswould bring about nothing but hatred for each other.
There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment andharassment by the husband and his family members
towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or
harassment may vary. However, the Police machineryshould 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 to ransom so that he could be
squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents,
relatives or friends. In all cases where the wife complains
of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC
cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete
without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
14
2026:HHC:19064matrimonial conduct which may cause annoyance to the
other may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations
and quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-
day married life, may also not amount to cruelty”
.
15. Similarly, it was held in Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v.
State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 127: 2024 (2) SCR 252 that the
phenomenon of false implication by a general omnibus
allegation in the case of a matrimonial dispute is not unknown
of
to the Court. When the allegations are general and omnibus, the
prosecution should not be continued. It was observed: –
rt
“14. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is
significant merit in the submissions of the LearnedCounsel for the Appellants. A bare perusal of the
complaint, statement of witnesses and the charge sheet
shows that the allegations against the Appellants are
wholly general and omnibus in nature; even if they aretaken in their entirety, they do not prima facie make out a
case against the Appellants. The material on record
neither discloses any particulars of the offences allegednor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned to any
of the Appellants in the commission of the offences.
15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of
general omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonialdisputes is not unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan
Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, this
Court dealt with a similar case wherein the allegations
made by the complainant-wife against her in-laws u/s.
498A and others were vague and general, lacking any
specific role and particulars. The court proceeded to
quash the FIR against the accused persons and noted that
such a situation, if left unchecked, would result in the
abuse of the process of law.
::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
15
2026:HHC:19064
xxxx
17. Considering the dicta in Mahmood Ali (supra), we find
that the High Court, in this case, has failed to exercise due
care and has mechanically permitted the criminal
.
proceedings to continue despite specifically finding that
the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. The
Appellants herein approached the High Court on inter alia
grounds that the proceedings were re-initiated on
vexatious grounds and even highlighted the
commencement of divorce proceedings by Respondent
No. 2. In these peculiar circumstances, the High Court had
of
a duty to consider the allegations with great care and
circumspection so as to protect against the danger of
unjust prosecution.”
16. This position was reiterated in Geddam Jhansi v. State
rt
of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263, wherein it was observed:
“31. Invoking criminal process is a serious matter with
penal consequences involving coercive measures, which
can be permitted only when the specific act(s) whichconstitute offences punishable under the Penal Code or
any other penal statute are alleged or attributed to the
accused and a prima facie case is made out. It applies withequal force when criminal laws are invoked in domestic
disputes. Criminalising domestic disputes withoutspecific allegations and credible materials to support the
same may have disastrous consequences for the
institution of family, which is built on the premise oflove, affection, cordiality and mutual trust. The
institution of family constitutes the core of human
society. Domestic relationships, such as those between
family members, are guided by deeply ingrained social
values and cultural expectations. These relationships are
often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of
respect, commitment, and emotional investment
compared to other social or professional associations. For
the aforesaid reason, the preservation of family::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
16
2026:HHC:19064relationships has always been emphasised. Thus, when
family relationships are sought to be brought within the
ambit of criminal proceedings, rupturing the family bond,
courts should be circumspect and judicious and should.
allow invocation of the criminal process only when there
are specific allegations with supporting materials that
clearly constitute criminal offences.
32. We have to keep in mind that in the context of
matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as such in
the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic
violence, there may be a tendency to implicate otherof
members of the family who do not come to the rescue of
the complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged
incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itself
constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts
rt
attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and
relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity toexaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily
mean that such domestic disputes should be given the
colour of criminality.
33. It goes without saying that genuine cases of cruelty
and violence in the domestic sphere, which do happen,
ought to be handled with utmost sensitivity. Domestic
violence typically happens within the four walls of thehouse and not in the public gaze. Therefore, such violence
is not noticed by the public at large, except perhaps by theimmediate neighbours. Thus, providing visible evidence
by the victim of domestic violence may not be easily
forthcoming and producing direct evidence may be hardand arduous, which does not necessarily mean that
domestic violence does not occur. In fact, to deal with this
pernicious phenomenon, stringent statutes like the
Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been
enacted with a very expansive meaning and scope of what
amounts to domestic violence. Since violence perpetrated
within the domestic sphere by close relatives is now
criminalised, entailing serious consequences on the
perpetrators, the courts have to be careful while dealing::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
17
2026:HHC:19064with such cases by examining whether there are specific
allegations with instances against the perpetrators and
not generalised allegations. The purpose and mandate of
the law to protect the victims of domestic violence is of.
paramount importance, and as such, a balance has to be
struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are brought to
book, all the family members or relatives are not
indiscriminately brought within the criminal net in asweeping manner.
34. For a matrimonial relationship that is founded on the
basis of cordiality and trust to turn sour to an extent toof
make a partner hurl allegations of domestic violence and
harassment against the other partner, would normally
not happen at the spur of the moment, and such an
acrimonious relationship would develop only in the
rt
course of time. Accordingly, such a situation would be the
culmination of a series of acts that turn, otherwise, anamicable relationship into a fractured one. Thus, in such
cases involving allegations of domestic violence or
harassment, there would normally be a series of
offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out bythe complainant against the perpetrators in specific
terms to rope such perpetrators in the criminal
proceedings sought to be initiated against them. Thus,mere general allegations of harassment without pointing
out the specifics against such perpetrators would notsuffice, as is the case in respect of the present appellants.
35. We are, thus, of the view that in criminal cases
relating to domestic violence, the complaints and chargesshould be specific, as far as possible, as against each and
every member of the family who is accused of such
offences and sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it
may amount to misuse of the stringent criminal process
by indiscriminately dragging all the members of the
family. There may be situations where some of the family
members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence
or harassment perpetrated on the victim and may not
extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
18
2026:HHC:19064necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of
domestic violence unless the circumstances clearly
indicate their involvement and instigation. Hence,
implicating all such relatives without making specific.
allegations and attributing offending acts to them and
proceeding against them without prima facie evidence
that they were complicit and had actively collaborated
with the perpetrators of domestic violence would amountto abuse of the process of law.”
17. It was submitted that the learned Magistrate had not
of
passed a speaking order, and the order is bad. This submission
will not help the petitioners. It was laid down by the Hon’ble
rt
Supreme Court in Accamma Sam Jacob v. State of Karnataka, 2026
SCC OnLine SC 585, that a Magistrate is not to adjudicate upon
the merits. It was observed:
“52…..It cannot be gainsaid that while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of CrPC, the Magistrate
is required to merely peruse the application filed by the
complainant and examine whether the facts disclosedtherein prima facie disclose the necessary ingredients of
cognizable offences requiring investigation by police. TheMagistrate is not expected to undertake an exhaustive
evaluation of evidence nor adjudicate upon the merits of
the allegations. If the Magistrate arrives at the conclusionthat prima facie a cognizable offence is disclosed, then he
would be fully justified in directing the concerned SHO to
register an FIR and proceed with investigation in
accordance with law…”
18. In the present case, the informant had specifically
mentioned in the complaint that the accused started insulting,
taunting, and passing sarcastic remarks to the informant for
::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
19
2026:HHC:19064
bringing insufficient dowry to harass, humiliate, and defame her
in the society. They demanded a dowry of ₹50,000/- from the
.
informant and her parents, and the informant’s parents had
transferred ₹9,000/- and ₹50,000/- to the bank account of the
informant’s husband in October 2023 and December 2023. They
demanded a bullet motorcycle and a car worth ₹35 lakhs. The
of
petitioners 2 to 4 gave beatings to the informant on 24.06.2024,
but she was not taken for treatment. These allegations show the
rt
specific role of the petitioners.
19. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that
the matter is at the initial stage. The police are investigating the
matter, and the truthfulness or otherwise will be determined
during investigation/trial. At this stage, the informant has
named the present petitioners in her complaint and has made
specific allegations against them. It was laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Accamma Sam Jacob v. State of
Karnataka, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 585, that the Courts should be
slow to scuttle the investigation and quash the FIR when the
matter has only been referred to the police under Section 156 (3)
of the CrPC. It was observed:
::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
20
2026:HHC:19064
55. This Court has, time and again, emphasised that
criminal investigation ought not to be scuttled at the
threshold except in cases where the complaint ex facie
does not disclose the commission of any cognizable.
offence or where continuation of the proceedings would
amount to an abuse of the process of law. The power of
the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article
226 of the Constitution of India to interdict investigation
is to be exercised with great circumspection, bearing in
mind the statutory duty of the investigating agency to
inquire into cognizable offences. The said position has
of
been eruditely explained by this Court in Neeharika
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC
401, wherein it was observed as under:–
rt “In a given case, there may be allegations of abuse
of the process of law by converting a civil dispute into
a criminal dispute, only with a view to pressurising theaccused. Similarly, in a given case, the complaint
itself, on the face of it, can be said to be barred by law.
The allegations in the FIR/complaint may not at all
disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. Insuch cases and in exceptional cases with
circumspection, the High Court may stay the further
investigation. However, at the same time, there maybe genuine complaints/FIRs, and the
police/investigating agency has a statutoryobligation/right/duty to enquire into the cognizable
offences. Therefore, a balance has to be struck between
the rights of the genuine complainants and the FIRsdisclosing commission of a cognizable offence and the
statutory obligation/duty of the investigating agency to
investigate into the cognizable offences on the one hand
and those innocent persons against whom the criminal
proceedings are initiated, which may be, in a given case,
abuse of process of law and the process. However, if the
facts are hazy and the investigation has just begun, the
High Court would be circumspect in exercising such
powers and the High Court must permit the investigating::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
21
2026:HHC:19064agency to proceed further with the investigation in
exercise of its statutory duty under the provisions of the
Code.” [Emphasis supplied]
Applying the aforesaid principles to the case at hand, it.
becomes evident that the High Court has transgressed the
well-settled boundaries governing the exercise of powers
under Section 482 CrPC at the threshold stage. The order
impugned before the High Court was one passed by thelearned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC, whereby
the police were merely directed to register an FIR and to
undertake an investigation in accordance with law. Atof
such a stage, the Court is only required to ascertain
whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence warranting
investigation.
rt
20. It was submitted that the allegations in the F.I.R. are
false, and no amount was transferred to the informant’s
husband’s account. This submission cannot be appreciated
during these proceedings. This Court cannot determine the
truthfulness or falsity of the allegations because it is a matter of
investigation and trial. This position was laid down in Maneesha
Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643, wherein it was
held: –
“13. As has already been observed hereinabove, the Court
would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the stage
of quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
However, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, if
taken at their face value, must disclose the commission of::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
22
2026:HHC:19064an offence and make out a case against the accused. At the
cost of repetition, in the present case, the allegations
made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at their face
value, do not disclose the commission of an offence or.
make out a case against the accused. We are of the
considered view that the present case would fall under
Category-3 of the categories enumerated by this Court in
the case of Bhajan Lal (supra).
14. We may gainfully refer to the observations of this
Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of
Delhi), Department of Home (2019) 11 SCC 706: 2018 INSCof
1060:
“14. First, we would like to deal with the submission
rtof the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that
once the charge sheet is filed, the petition for
quashing of the FIR is untenable. We do not see any
merit in this submission, keeping in mind theposition of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of
Gujarat [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7
SCC 59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23]. In Joseph Salvaraj A.
[Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59:
(2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this Court while deciding the
question of whether the High Court could entertain
the Section 482 petition for quashing of FIR whenthe charge-sheet was filed by the police during the
pendency of the Section 482 petition, observed:
(SCC p. 63, para 16)
“16. Thus, the general conspectus of thevarious sections under which the appellant
is being charged and is to be prosecuted
would show that the same are not made out
even prima facie from the complainant’s
FIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed,
the learned Single Judge [Joesph Saivaraj A.
v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365]
could have still examined whether the
offences alleged to have been committed by
the appellant were prima facie made out::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
23
2026:HHC:19064from the complainant’s FIR, charge-sheet,
documents, etc. or not.”
21. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
.
Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2025) 1 SCC 392:
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1894 that the Court cannot conduct a mini-
trial while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of CrPC. It
was observed at page 397:
of
“17. This Court, in a series of judgments, has held that
while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court is
rt
not supposed to hold a mini-trial. A profitable reference
can be made to the judgment in CBI v. Aryan Singh [CBI v.
Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379].
The relevant paragraph from the judgment is extracted
hereunder: (SCC paras 6-7)
6. … As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of
discharge and/or quashing of the criminal
proceedings, while exercising the powers under
Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct
the mini-trial. …
7. … At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising
the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court has very
limited jurisdiction and is required to consider
‘whether any sufficient material is available to proceed
further against the accused for which the accused is
required to be tried or not’.”
22. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, (1983) 1 SCC 1: 1983 SCC (Cri) 115 that
the proceedings can be quashed on the face of the complaint and
::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
24
2026:HHC:19064
the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. It
is not permissible to add or subtract anything. It was observed:
.
“10. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings
against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed
only if, on the face of the complaint or the papers
accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. Inother words, the test is that taking the allegations and the
complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting
anything, if no offence is made out, then the High Courtof
will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of
its powers under Section 482 of the present Code.”
23. Madras High Court also held in Ganga Bai v. Shriram,
rt
1990 SCC OnLine MP 213: ILR 1992 MP 964: 1991 Cri LJ 2018, that
the fresh evidence is not permissible or desirable in the
proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It was observed:
Proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed
to be converted into a full-dressed trial. Shri Maheshwari
filed a photostat copy of an order dated 28.7.1983, passedin Criminal Case No. 1005 of 1977, to which the present
petitioner was not a party. Fresh evidence at this stage isneither permissible nor desirable. The respondent, by filing
this document, is virtually introducing additional evidence,
which is not the object of Section 482, Cr.P.C.”
24. Andhra Pradesh High Court also took a similar view
in Bharat Metal Box Company Limited, Hyderabad and Others vs. G.
K. Strips Private Limited and another, 2004 STPL 43 AP, and held:
“9. This Court can only look into the complaint and the
documents filed along with it, and the sworn statements
of the witnesses, if any, recorded. While judging the::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
25
2026:HHC:19064correctness of the proceedings, it cannot look into the
documents, which were not filed before the lower Court.
Section 482 Cr.PC debars the Court from looking into
fresh documents, in view of the principles laid down by.
the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M.
Devendrappa and another, 2002 (1) Supreme 192. The
relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:
“The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it
appears that, on consideration of the allegations, in
the light of the statement made on oath of the
complainant, that the ingredients of the offence orof
offences are disclosed and there is no material to
show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or
vexatious, in that event, there would be no
rtjustification for interference by the High Court.
When information is lodged at the Police Station,
and an offence is registered, then the mala fides ofthe informant would be of secondary importance. It
is the material collected during the investigation
and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of
the accused person. The allegations of mala fidesagainst the informant are of no consequence and
cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the
proceedings”.
25. A similar view was taken in Mahendra K.C. v. State of
Karnataka, (2022) 2 SCC 129: (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 401, wherein it
was observed at page 142:
“16. … the test to be applied is whether the allegations in
the complaint, as they stand, without adding or
detracting from the complaint, prima facie establish the
ingredients of the offence alleged. At this stage, the High
Court cannot test the veracity of the allegations, nor, for
that matter, can it proceed in the manner that a judge
conducting a trial would, based on the evidence collected
during the course of the trial.”
::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
26
2026:HHC:19064
26. This position was reiterated in Supriya Jain v. State of
Haryana, (2023) 7 SCC 711: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765, wherein it was
.
held:
13. All these documents, which the petitioner seeks to rely
on, if genuine, could be helpful for her defence at thetrial, but the same are not material at the stage of
deciding whether quashing as prayed for by her before the
High Court was warranted or not. We, therefore, see noof
reason to place any reliance on these three documents.
27. A similar view was taken in Iveco Magirus
Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya, (2024) 2
rt
SCC 86: (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 512: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1258, wherein
it was observed:
“63. Adverting to the aspect of the exercise of jurisdiction
by the High Courts under Section 482CrPC, in a case
where the offence of defamation is claimed by the accused
to have not been committed based on any of the
Exceptions and a prayer for quashing is made, the lawseems to be well settled that the High Courts can go no
further and enlarge the scope of inquiry if the accused seeksto rely on materials which were not there before the
Magistrate. This is based on the simple proposition that whatthe Magistrate could not do, the High Courts may not do. We
may not be understood to undermine the High Courts’
powers saved by Section 482CrPC; such powers are always
available to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e. to do real
and substantial justice for the administration of which
alone the High Courts exist. However, the tests laid down
for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings arising from
a police report by the High Courts in the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC not being
substantially different from the tests laid down for::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
27
2026:HHC:19064quashing a process issued under Section 204 read with
Section 200, the High Courts on recording due
satisfaction are empowered to interfere if on a reading of
the complaint, the substance of statements on oath of the.
complainant and the witness, if any, and documentary
evidence as produced, no offence is made out and that
proceedings, if allowed to continue, would amount to an
abuse of the legal process. This, too, would beimpermissible if the justice of a given case does not
overwhelmingly so demand.” (Emphasis supplied).
28. This position was reiterated in Accamma Sam Jacob v.
of
State of Karnataka, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 585, wherein it was
observed: rt
54. The facts in the case at hand manifest that the High
Court proceeded to examine documents relied upon by
the accused-respondents, including the sale deeds
executed in their favour, and treated the same as
determinative of the dispute and observed that the sale
deeds must be cancelled and delivered up first, before the
criminal law could be set into motion. Such an exercise
was clearly beyond the permissible scope of scrutiny in a
petition for quashing under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Consideration of defence material, including sale deeds or
other title documents, would necessarily involve
adjudication on disputed questions of fact, which fall
squarely within the domain of investigation and, if
necessary, trial. Any such exercise at the stage of Section
156(3) of CrPC would amount to conducting a mini-trial
and would be wholly impermissible. Permitting such
defence material to be weighed at the threshold would
frustrate and defeat the very purpose of directing an
investigation by the police.
29. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it
is dismissed.
::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
28
2026:HHC:19064
30. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain
confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing
.
whatsoever on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
22nd May, 2026
(ravinder)
of
rt
::: Downloaded on – 23/05/2026 12:44:36 :::CIS
