Karnataka High Court
Mr G Silambu Selvan vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3114 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. MR.G.SILAMBU SELVAN
S/O MR.M. GURUSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
2. MRS.S.THAILESHWARI
W/O MR.G.SILAMBU SELVAN,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
BOTH RESIDEDNTS OF
NO.757/1F,
1ST CROSS, 2ND STAGE,
C.F.T.R.I. LAYOUT,
Digitally signed AMRITANANDAMAYI COLLEGE ROAD,
by SANJEEVINI 2ND STAGE, BOGADI,
J KARISHETTY
Location: High MYSURU - 570 026.
Court of
Karnataka
3. MRS.S.VENMATHI
W/O MR. SRINIVASAN,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.11/15,
INDIRA NAGAR, SELVAPURAM,
KOMARAPALYAM POST,
COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU - 641 026.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. I.S PRAMOD CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WOMEN POLICE,
MYSURU CITY, THROUGH
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MRS. R.V. HARSHITA
W/O MR. RAGHUL SELVAN,
D/O MR. R.T. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.757/1F,
C.F.T.R.I. 2ND STAGE,
BOGADI,
MYSURU - 570 026
(AS CLAIMED IN THE F.I.R.)
ALSO AT RAJANABELAGUDI VILLAGE,
KANAGAL POST,
PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI JAYANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.13/2024 REGISTERED WITH
RESPONDENT NO.1 WOMEN POLICE STATION, MYSURU FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.
3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961, NOW PENDING
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND
J.M.F.C., AT MYSURU AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
(ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 4 RESPECTIVELY HEREIN).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners/accused nos.2, 3 and 4 are before this
Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No. 13
of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections
498A, 504, 506 and 149 of the IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Heard Sri I. S. Pramod Chandra, learned counsel
appearing for petitioners and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent
No.1 and Sri Jayanth Kumar M, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. The accused no. 1 Rahul Selvam and the complainant
get married on 15-03-2021. The relationship between accused
No.1 and the complainant appears to have floundered. On
floundering of the relationship, the complainant registers a
complaint before the jurisdictional police, which becomes a
crime in Crime No. 13 of 2024 for the afore-quoted offences.
The registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioners
to this Court in the subject petition.
4. The relationship between the parties is that, the 2nd
respondent is the complainant. The accused no. 2 is the father-
in-law, accused No.3 is mother-in-law and accused No.4 is the
grandmother of the accused no. 1.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would vehemently contend that a perusal at the complaint
would indicate that all the offences are against the accused
no.1, the husband, while there is nothing against these
petitioners that would become the ingredients of Section 498A,
504 or 506 of the IPC. He would submit that accused no. 4 who
is a resident at Coimbatore and now 74 years old is also
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
dragged into these proceedings, only on the score that she has
instigated the husband/accused No.1 to demand money. The
learned counsel submits that the allegations against all the
petitioners is instigation for commission of certain acts at the
hands of the husband/accused No.1.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent/complainant would vehemently contend that the
complaint is in detail. It pins down every overt act committed
by every person and therefore, investigation in the least in the
case at hand, must be permitted. The learned counsel would
seek dismissal of the petition.
7. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
appearing for the 1st respondent would also submit that the
matter is still at the stage of investigation and if permitted, the
jurisdictional police would continue the investigation and may
be a ‘B’ report could also be filed against these petitioners.
Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the registration
of the crime.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The
relationship between the parties is what is narrated
hereinabove. The husband/accused No.1 is not before the
Court. The relationship between the husband and the
complainant turned sour 2 years after marriage and several
proceedings galore against each other. One such proceeding is
the subject complaint. A complaint comes to be registered
before the jurisdictional police by the 2nd
respondent/complainant, which becomes a crime in Crime No.
13 of 2024. Since the entire issue has now sprung from the
complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The
complaint reads as follows:
"ರವ ೆ
ಆರ ಕ ೕ ಕರು.
ಮ ಾ ೕ ಾ ೆ.
ಲಷ ಹ ಾ, ೖಸೂರು.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
ರವ ಂದ
%&ೕಮ' ಹ()ತ ಆ + ೨೬ ವಷ)
.ೋಂ /ಾಘ1 2ೆಲ3ಂ, ಗೃ 6
7ಾಸ: #757/1 ಎ9.:ಎ ಆ ಐ
೨<ೆ ಹಂತ, =ೋ ಾ>,
ೖಸೂರು.
=ೈ1 ಸಂ?ೆ@: 8867563624
2ಾ3A,
+ಷಯ : ನನD ಪ’ /ಾಘ1 2ೆಲ3ಂ, ನಮF Gಾವ Hಲಂಬು 2ೆಲ3ಂ ನನD ಅKೆL
Kೈ ೇಶ3 Nಾಗು ನನD ಪ’ಯ ಅOP 7ೆಣF’ ರವರುಗಳS NೆTUನ
ವರದV ೆ ತರುವಂKೆ ನನ ೆ Wರುಕುಳ ೕಡು’LದುY Nಾಗು ನನD ಪ’
ಅ<ೈಸZ)ಕ ೈಂZಕ W&[ ನ\ೆಸುವಂKೆ ನನ ೆ Wರುಕುಳ ೕಡು’Lರುವ
ಬ ೆ] ದೂರು.
***
ಈ ೕಲ ಂಡ +ಷಯ.ೆ ಸಂಬಂ_HದಂKೆ ತಮF ಈ ಮೂಲಕ
+ನಂ’H.ೊಳS`ವabೇ<ೆಂದ/ೆ ನನD ಗಂಡನ ಮ<ೆಯವರು ತಮF ಸಂಬಂ>ಕರ ಕ\ೆcಂದ
ನನDನುD +7ಾಹ7ಾಗಲು ನನD ತಂbೆಯ ಮ<ೆ ೆ ಬಂದು +7ಾಹದ ಕು ತು GಾತುಕKೆ Gಾd,
GಾತುಕKೆ ಸಂದಭ)ದ ನನD ಗಂಡ ೆ 500 ಾ&ಂ TನD, 3 .ೆ O =ೆf` 2ಾGಾನುಗಳS Nಾಗು
ವ/ೋಪgಾರ7ಾZ Nೊಸ .ಾರು .ೊಳ`ಲು 10,00.000/- ನಗದು ಮದು7ೆ ಮತುL
%UKಾಥ).ೆ ನನD ಗಂಡ ೆ ಬiೆj ಮತುL ಇತ/ೆ ಖT) ಾZ ರೂ 2,00.000/- ಗಳನೂD
ವರದV ೆ GಾತುಕKೆ Gಾd, +ಜೃಂಬ ೆcಂದ ನನD ಗಂಡನ ಮ<ೆಯವರ ಇgೆUಯಂKೆ
%UKಾಥ) ಮತುL +7ಾಹವನುD Gಾd.ೊಡುವಂKೆ =ೇd.ೆಯನುD Gಾdದ ೕ/ೆ ೆ ><ಾಂಕ :
24/01/2021 ರಂದು /ಾnೇಂದ& ಕ ಾ@ಣ ಮಂಟಪ ೖಸೂರು ಇ ಗುರು ಯರ ಸಮ ಮ
ದ ಅದೂY pಾZ +ಜೃಂಬ ೆcಂದ %UKಾಥ) .ಾಯ)ಕ&ಮವನುD Gಾd.ೊqjದುY
%UKಾಥ)ದ ಸಮಯದ ನನD ಗಂಡ ೆ 30 ಾ&ಂ TನDದ ಸರ, 10 ಾ&ಂ ಉಂಗುರ 30 ಾ&ಂ
TನDದ =ೆ&ೕ¸ÉèÃs ಅನುD .ೊಟುj, ನನD ಗಂಡನ ಮ<ೆಯವರ ಇgೆUಯಂKೆ %UKಾಥ)ದ
.ಾಯ)ಕ&ಮವನುD ನಮF ಮ<ೆಯವರು ನ\ೆH.ೊqjರುKಾL/ೆ ಒಟುj ಎಲ ಖಚು) 2ೇ ರೂ
50.00,000/- ಗಳ ೕ ಾZರುತLbೆ ಇದನುD ನನD ತಂbೆಯವ/ೇ 2ಾಲ 2ೋಲ Gಾd
ಭ HರುKಾL/ೆ ಮತುL ನನD Kಾತನ Nೆಸ ನ ದY : pಾಪಟjಣದ 7ೇಶನ ನನD Nೆಸ ೆ
ಬ/ೆದು .ೊqjರುKಾL/ೆ ಮದು7ೆpಾದ ನಂತರ ನನDನುD ನನD ಗಂಡನ ಮ<ೆ ೆ ಕ/ೆದು.ೊಂಡು
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024HC-KAR
NೋZರುKಾL/ೆ ಮದು7ೆ ಆದ ಸ3ಲv >ನಗಳ ನಂತರ ನನD Gಾವ ಅKೆL ಮತುL ನನD ಪ’ಯ ಅOP
ರವರುಗಳS ಇನುD NೆTUನ ವರದV ೆ ತರುವಂKೆ :ೕdಸಲು ಶುರುGಾdರುKಾL/ೆ Nಾಗು ಅವರ
ತಂbೆ Kಾc ಅOP ಇಲ ಸಲದ ಸಬೂಬುಗಳನುD Nೇf.ೊಂಡು ನನDನುD ತುಚU7ಾZ ಂ>ಸುKಾL
ನZಂತ =ೇ/ೆಯವಳನುD ಮದು7ೆ GಾdದY ನನD ಮಗ ೆ NೆTUನ ವರದV ೆಯನುD ೕಡುವ
ಹುಡುZ Hಗು’ದYಳS Nಾಗು ನನD ಮಗ ಇಷjಪಟj ಹುಡುZpಾದ ಐಶ3ಯ)ಳನುD ಮದು7ೆ
GಾdದY NೆTUನ ವರದV ೆಯನುD ತರು’LದYಳS ಎಂದು >ನ ತ@ ನನ ೆ ಂ2ೆಯನುD ೕಡುKಾL
ಬಂ>ರುKಾL/ೆ.
ಇbೆಲವನುD ನಮF ಮ<ೆಯವ ೆ ‘fHದ ಎ <ೊಂದು.ೊಳS`KಾL/ೋ ಎಂಬ
ಉbೆYೕಶ>ಂದ ನನD ಗಂಡನ ಮತುL ಅವರ ಮ<ೆಯವರ GಾನHಕ Nಾಗು bೈ ಕ WರುಕುಳವನುD
ಸ H.ೊಂಡು ಬಂ>ರುKೆLೕ<ೆ, ಮದು7ೆpಾದ >ನ>ಂದ ಇ ಯವ/ೆ+ಗೂ ನನD ಗಂಡ ಒಬx
ಜ7ಾ=ಾY ಯುತ ಗಂಡ<ಾZ ನ\ೆದು.ೊಳ`bೆ, ನನD ಗಂಡ ನನD ಮದು7ೆpಾದ ನಂತರ ನನD
ಗಂಡನ yೆ&ೕಯHpಾದ ಐಶ3ಯ) ೆz ಂ> ೆ gಾqಂ{ =ೈ1 ಸಂ?ೆ@ 8971333666
ದಲು ಅವಳ 2ೇ| ಬಂದ ಕೂಡ ೇ =ಾ} gÀÆ«ÄUÉ NೋZ ಅವ ೆz ಂ> ೆ ಗಂiೆಗಟj ೆ
gಾqಂ{ ಅನುD GಾಡುತL ಬಂ>ರುKಾL/ೆ ಇದನುD ಗಮ Hದ <ಾನು ಇದರ ಬ ೆ] +gಾ Hbಾಗ
ನನ ೆ bೈ ಕ7ಾZ ಹ ೆಯನುD Gಾd ನZಂತ ಅವ ೇ ನನ ೆ ಇಷj ¤£Àßö£ÀÄß
«ªÁºÀªÁUÀ¢zÀÝ°è £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀÄRªÁVgÀÄwÛzÉÝ. CªÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ <ಾನು
bೈ ಕ7ಾZ NೆಚುU ಸುಖ7ಾZರು’LzÉÝ. ಎಂದು ಅ7ಾಚ@ ಶಬYಗfಂದ ಂ>H ಸದ
+gಾರವನುD ನಮF ಮ<ೆಯವjUÉ ‘fಸದಂKೆ =ೆದ .ೆಯನುD NಾWರುKಾL/ೆ
ಅಲbೆ ನಮF ಮದು7ೆpಾದ ಮೂರು ‘ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ ಒಂದು >ನ ನನD ಗಂಡ ೆ
ಐಶ3ಯ) ಬ/ೆ>ರುವ yೆ&ೕಮದ ಪತ&ಗಳS HW ದ ನಂತರ <ಾನು ಸದ +gಾರವನುD
+gಾ ಸ ಾZ ನನD ಗಂಡ ಸದ ಐಶ3ಯ) ೆz ಂ> ೆ :&ೕ’ Gಾಡು’Lರುವ ಬ ೆ], Nಾಗು ಸದ
+gಾರವನುD .ೇfದY ನDನುD .ೊ ೆ GಾಡುವabಾZ =ೆಂW NಾW 2ಾಯುಸುKೆLೕ<ೆ ಎಂದು
Wರುgಾಡು’LದYರು ಮತುL ನDನುD ಮ<ೆ ~ಟುj ಕಳS ಸುವabಾZ Nಾಗು ನನD ಅKೆLಯವರು ನನD
ಮಗನನುD ಸದ +gಾರ7ಾZ ಪ&%Dಸುವ NಾZಲ ಅವರ ಇgೆ•ಯಂKೆ ೕನು ನ\ೆದು.ೊಂಡು
Nೋಗ=ೇ.ೆಂದು ಸದ ಐಶ3ಯ)ಳ +gಾರ.ೆ ಸಂಬಂ_HದಂKೆ ನನD ಗಂಡನ ಮ<ೆಯವರು
ನ<ೊDಂ> ೆ ಜಗಳ GಾdರುKಾL/ೆ, ಇbೆಲವನುD ಸ H.ೊಂಡು Nೋಗು’LದYರು ಸಹ ನನD ಗಂಡ
ಮತುL ಐಶ3ಯ)ರವರು >ನಂಪ&’ =ೈಲD gಾqಂ{ GಾಡುವaದನುD Hರುವa>ಲ,
ಇbಾದ .ೆಲವa >ನಗಳ ನಂತರ ನನD ಗಂಡ ಮತುL ಐಶ3ಯ) ರವರು ೕ1 ನ yೆ&ೕಮದ
ಸಂbೇಶ ಕಳS Hರುವaದು bೊ/ೆತ ೕ/ೆ ೆ <ಾನು ನನD ಗಂಡನನುD ಆಗಲು .ೇfbಾಗ ನನD
ೕ ೆ ಹ ೆಯನುD GಾdರುKಾL/ೆ Nಾಗು ನನD ಅKೆL ಮತುL ನನD ಪ’ಯ ಅOPಯು ಸಹ ನನDನುD
ಂ>ಸುKಾL/ೆ ನನD ತಂbೆಯ ಮ<ೆಯವರು ಕ/ೆ Gಾd ಸದ +gಾರವನುD ‘fಸ ಾZ ನನD
ಮ<ೆಯವರು /ಾO ಸಂ€ಾನ Gಾd ನನD ಗಂಡ ೆ ಬು>•7ಾದ Nೇf ಇನುD ಮುಂbೆ ೕ ೆ
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
ನ\ೆದು.ೊಳS`ವa>ಲ ಎಂದು ನನD ಗಂಡ ಭರವ2ೆ ೕdದ ೕ/ೆ ೆ <ಾ<ಾಗ , ನನD
ಮ<ೆಯವ/ಾಗ pಾವabೇ ದೂರನುD ೕಡbೆ ಗಂಡನ ಮ<ೆಯವ/ೊಂ> ೆ ಅನೂ@ನ@7ಾZ
Oೕವನ ನ\ೆH.ೊಂಡು Nೋಗಲು ಪ&ಯತD ಪqjರುKೆLೕ<ೆ.
ನನD ಗಂಡ ಮತುL ಅವರ ಮ<ೆಯವರು ೕಡು’LದY ಎಲ WರುಕುಳಗಳನೂD
ಸ H.ೊಂಡು Nೋಗು’LದYರು ಸಹ ಹಬx ಹ >ನಗಳ ನನD ತಂbೆಯ ಮ<ೆ ೆ ಕ/ೆದು.ೊಂಡು
NೋಗುವಂKೆ .ೋ .ೊಂಡರು ನನDನು ತುಚ•7ಾZ ಂ>Hದ ನಂತರ ಹಬxದ >ನ ನನDನು
ಕ/ೆದು.ೊಂಡು Nೋಗು7ಾಗ ನನD ಗಂಡ ನ<ೊDಂ> ೆ ೕನು Gಾತ<ಾಡು ಎಂದು NೇಳS7ಾಗ
<ಾನು ನನD ಗಂಡ<ೊಂ> ೆ :&ೕ’ ಮತುL ಸಲ ೆ ಇಂದ Gಾತ<ಾಡಲು Nೋbಾಗ ‘ ನ ೆ
Gಾತ<ಾಡಲು ಬರುವa>ಲ ನನDನುD ನD Gಾ’ ಂದ ಇಂyೆ& ಆಗು’Lಲ. ಎಂದು Nೇf
ನನDನುD ಮಧ@ರ2ೆLಯ ೆ pಾವabೇ ಸ.ಾರಣ+ಲbೆ .ಾರನುD H ನನD ೕ ೆ bೈ ಕ7ಾZ
ಹ ೆಯನುD Gಾd ಅ7ಾಚ@ ಶಬYಗfಂದ ಂ>HರುKಾL/ೆ, ನನD ತಂbೆಯ ಮ<ೆ ೆ ನನD ಗಂಡ
ಬರುವ ಪ&’ ಹಬx.ೆ ನನD ತಂbೆಯ ಮ<ೆಯವರು =ೆ ೆ =ಾಳSವ T<ಾDಭರಣವನುD ೕdದ
Gಾತ& ಹಬx.ೆ ಬರುKೆLೕ<ೆ ಎಂದು =ೇd.ೆಯನುD ನನD ಗಂಡ ಇಡು’LದY ೕ/ೆ ೆ ನನD ಗಂಡ ೆ
ಪ&’ ಹಬxದಲೂ =ೆ ೆ =ಾಳSವ T<ಾDಭರಣವನುD ನನD ತಂbೆಯ ಮ<ೆಯವರು ೕಡುKಾL
ಬಂ>ರುKಾL/ೆ ನನD ಗಂಡ ಒಬx ಅ%ೕಲ Tತ&ವನುD <ೋಡುವ ವ@ಸ pಾZದುY ಅ%ೕಲ
Tತ&ಗಳ ಬರುವ Tತ&ದಂKೆ ಅ<ೈಸZ)ಕ ೈಂZಕ W&[ಯ KೊಡುಗುವಂKೆ ನನDನುD
ಂHಸು’LದYರು . <ಾನು ಅದ.ೆ ಒಪv>ದY ನನD ೕ ೆ bೈ ಕ ಹ ೆಯನುD Gಾd
TKಾ& ಂ2ೆಯನುD ೕಡುKಾL ಬಂ>ರುKಾL/ೆ.
<ಾನು ನನD ಗಂಡ<ೊಂ> ೆ ಹಬx.ೆ ನನD ತಂbೆಯ ಮ<ೆ ೆ Nೋbಾಗ ನನD ಪ’
7ಾyಾ ೖಸೂ Nೋಗಣ ಎಂದು ಜಗಳ Kೆ ೆ>ರುKಾL/ೆ <ಾನು 2 >ನ ಇರುವaದ.ೆ Kಾ<ೇ
ಇ ೆ ಬಂ>ದುY ಎಂದು Nೇfbಾಗ ><ಾಂಕ 02.09.2022 ರಂದು =ೆf ೆ] 6:30 ಸಮಯದ
ನನDನುD ದರದರ<ೆ ಎ ೆದು.ೊಂಡು =ಾ ಊ ೆ Nೋ ೋಣ ಎಂದು nೋ/ಾZ ಎ ೆbಾಗ
qjಲು nಾ .ೆಳ ೆ ~ದುY ನನD ಬಲ .ಾಲು ಮು ತ7ಾZರುತLbೆ ತ ಣ ಅವರು ¤Ã£É nಾ ~bೆY
ಎಂದು Nೇಳ=ೇಕು ಇಲ>ದY/ೆ ನDನುD ನD ತವರು ಮ<ೆಯ ೇ ~ಟುj NೋಗುKೆLೕ<ೆ ಎಂದು
ನನDನುD Nೆದ ಸುKಾL/ೆ <ಾನು ಭಯ>ಂದ ಅವರು NೇfದಂKೆ ಎಲ ಗು <ಾ<ೆ .ಾಲು nಾ ~bೆY
ಎಂದು ಸುಳS` NೇfರುKೆLೕ<ೆ ನಂತರ ಅವ/ೇ ನನDನುD ಮತುL ನನD KಾcಯನುD .ಾ ನ
ಕು…ಾಲನಗರ.ೆ TWKೆ† ೆ ಕ/ೆದು .ೊಂಡು NೋZರುKಾL/ೆ (=ಾ ಾO ಆಸvKೆ& ) ಅ .ಾ ೆ
ಶಸ‡ T.ೆKೆ† Gಾಡ=ೇಕು ಎಂದು ‘fಸ ಾZ ನನDಪ’ ನನDನುD ೖಸೂ ೆ ಕ/ೆದು.ೊಂಡು
ಅ ೕ ೋ ಆಸvKೆ& ೆ bಾಖಲು GಾdರುKಾL/ೆ . ಅ ನನD ಬಲ ಾ ೆ ಶಸ‡ TWKೆ† ಆZ 4
>ನಗಳ .ಾಲ ಆಸvKೆ&ಯ ಒಳ /ೋZpಾZ bಾಖ ಾZರುKೆLೕ<ೆ. ಅ TWKೆ† ಸ pಾZ
ಆಗದ ಕರಣ ನನD ಬಲ ಾ ೆ 2ೋಂಕು ಆZ bೊಡ‰bಾದ ಾpಾ ಆZ ‘ಂಗಳSಗಟj ೆ <ೋವa
‘ಂ>ರುKೆLೕ<ೆ . ನಂತರ ಆ 7ೈದ@ರನುD ಬದ H \ಾ|| ಅಜ‹ Nೆ ೆ‰ರವರ TWKೆ† ಯನುD
ಮುಂದುವ/ೆಸ ಾZ ನನ ೆ 3 Œಾ ಶಸ‡ TWKೆ† ಆZರುತLbೆ. ಸ ಸುGಾರು 6 ‘ಂಗಳ .ಾಲ
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
NಾH ೆಯ [ೕ ಮಲZರುKೆLೕ<ೆ ಇ•ಾjದರೂ ಸಹ ನನD ಗಂಡ pಾವabೇ ೕ’pಾZ ನನD
pಾವabೇ ತರದಲೂ ಉಪಚ ಸbೆ ಅಸ\ೆ‰ Kೋ HರುKಾL/ೆ ಆಸvKೆ&ಯ ಖಚು) 7ೆಚUಗಳS
+ cಂದ ಭ ಸಲvಡುತLbೆ .ಆ 7ೆಚUವನುD ಸಹ ಸುGಾರು 4 ಂದ 5 ಲ ದವ/ೆ ೆ ನನD ತಂbೆ
Kಾc ಇಂದ ಪ\ೆ>ರುKಾL/ೆ. ಇವರ ಉbೆYೕಶ ನನDನುD ಸಂಪŽಣ)7ಾZ ಅಂಗ+ಕಲಳ<ಾDZ
Gಾಡುವ ದುರುbೆYೕಶ>ಂದ ಸ pಾದ ಸಮಯ.ೆ TWKೆ† ೆ 7ೈದ@ರ ಬf ಕ/ೆದು.ೊಂಡು
Nೋಗbೆ ಂ2ೆ ೕdರುKಾL/ೆ, ಈ ೕ’ ನ\ೆದು.ೊಂdರುKಾL/ೆ. ಅಲbೆ <ಾನು
ಅಂಗ+ಕ ಾಳದ ನನD ಗಂಡನ yೆ&ೕಯHpಾದ ಐಶ3ಯ) ೆz ಂ> ೆ +7ಾಹವನುD
Gಾd.ೊಳS`ವ ದುರುbೆYೕಶವನುD Nೊಂ>ದYರು. <ಾನು ಶಸ‡ TWKೆ† ೆ ಒಳ ಾದ ನಂತರ ಅ<ೇಕ
Œಾ ಅವ ೆz ಂ> ೆ ಸುKಾLdರುKಾL/ೆ
ನನD ಗಂಡ ಮತುL ಅವರ ಮ<ೆಯವರು ಸ pಾZ ಶಸ‡ TWKೆ† Gಾdಸದ .ಾರಣ
2ೋಂಕು NೆgಾUದ .ಾರಣ ೖಸೂ ನ HೕKಾರಂಗ ಆಸvKೆ&ಯ ಮೂರು =ಾ ಶಸ‡ TWKೆ† ೆ
ಒಳ ಾZbಾYಗಲೂ ಕೂಡ ನನDನು ನನD ಗಂಡ ಮತುL ಅವರ ಮ<ೆಯವರು <ೋd.ೊಳ`bೆ
ನನDನುD ಲ) Kೆcಂದ ತುಚU7ಾZ ಂ>H ನನ ೆ GಾನHಕ7ಾZ Nಾಗು bೈ ಕ7ಾZ
ಂ2ೆಯನುD ೕdರುKಾL/ೆ. ಶಸ‡ TWKೆ† ಒಳ ಾದ ನಂತರ ನನD •ೕಗ•ೇಮವನುD
<ೋd.ೊಳ`ಲು ನನD Kಾc ನನD ಗಂಡನ ಮ<ೆ ೆ ಬಂbಾಗ ನನD ಗಂಡ ಮತುL ಅವರ
ಮ<ೆಯವರು ನನD Kಾc •ಂ> ೆ ಜಗಳ Gಾd ಕಳS HರುKಾL/ೆ. ಮದು7ೆpಾದ >ನ>ಂದ
ಇ ಯವ/ೆ ೆ ನನD ಗಂಡ ಮತುL ಅವರ ಮ<ೆಯವರು ನನD ತಂbೆಯ ಮ<ೆಯ NೆTUನ
ವರದV ೆಯನುD ತರುವಂKೆ ಇಲ ಸಲದ ಸಬೂಬುಗಳನುD Nೇf.ೊಂಡು ನನ ೆ bೈ ಕ ಮತುL
GಾನHಕ ಂ2ೆಯನುD ೕಡುKಾL ಬಂ>ರುKಾL/ೆ.
><ಾಂಕ 12/10/2023 ರಂದು ನನDನುD ಪŽnೆ ೆ ಬರುªÀAvÉ .ೊಯಮತೂL ೆ ನನD
ಗಂಡ ಮತುL ಅವರ ಮ<ೆಯವರು Nೇfbಾಗ, <ಾನು GಾHಕ ರಜ >ನ7ಾದY ಂದ ಬರಲು
2ಾಧ@+ಲ7ೆಂದು Nಾಗು ಪŽnಾ .ಾಯ)ದ yಾ ೊ]ಳ`ಲು 2ಾಧ@+ಲ ಎಂದು ‘fHbಾಗ,ಸದ
+gಾರ7ಾZ ಇದು ನನD ಮ<ೆ, <ಾನು NೇfದಂKೆ .ೇಳ=ೇಕು ಇಲ7ಾದ/ೆ ಮ<ೆ~ಟುj Nೋಗು
ಎಂದು ಎ ೆbಾdದರು, ಆಸಮಯದ ಒಸ ೆ ನನD ಬಳZನ Nೆ=ೆxರಳS KಾW ಾಯ7ಾZತುL
ನನ ೆ ಭಯ7ಾZ =ಾ} gÀÆ«ÄUÉ NೋಗುವಂKಾcತು, Nೋದ ಸಂದಭ)ದ /ಾqï£À
=ಾZಲು ಒ\ೆಯಲು ಯ’D¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ನನ ೆ ಾಬ pಾZ ನನD ¸ÉÆÃzÀgÀGಾವ (ರಂಗ2ಾ3A)
ೆ ಕ/ೆ Gಾdbೆ ಅವರು ಉತL Hಲ7ೆಂದು ನನD ತಂbೆ ೆ ಕ/ೆ Gಾdbೆ,ಅವ ೆ ಾಬ pಾZ
ನಮF 2ೋದರ Gಾವ (ರಂಗ2ಾ3A) ನಮF Tಕ ಪv (ರ+) ೆ ಕ/ೆGಾd +ಷಯವನುD
‘fHದರು. ಕ/ೆGಾdದ ನಂತರ =ಾ’ =ಾZಲು Kೆ ೆದ ತ ಣ ನನD ಗಂಡ ಕತುL ಮತುL =ೆ D ೆ
.ೈcಂದ ಗು>Yದರು ತುಂ=ಾ <ೋ7ಾಯುL. ಆ ಸಮಯದ ಮKೆL ಎ ಕ/ೆGಾಡುKೆLೕ<ೋ
ಎಂದು ಅವರ ಅOP (7ೆಣF’ ) ನನD ಭುಜವನುD ಗqjpಾZ dದು.ೊಂdದYರು, Nಾಗು ನನD
ಗಂಡ ೆ ಪ&gೋ>Hದರು ಅbಾದ ನಂತರ ನನD ಸNೋದರ (+nೇ}) ಪ ೕ•ೆ ೆ ಬಂದು
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
Tಕ ಪನ ಮ<ೆಯ ಉfದು .ೊಂdದುY 1/2 ಗಂiೆಯ ಒಳ ೆ ನಮF Gಾವ (ರಂಗ2ಾ3A)
ನಮF Tಕ ಪv (ರ+) ಮತುL ನನD ತಮF +nೇ} ಬಂದು ಏನು Gಾತ<ಾಡbೆ ನನDನುD .ೈ
dದು ನನD ತಮF Nೊರ ೆ ಕ/ೆದು .ೊಂಡು ಬಂದ, ನಮF Gಾವ ಮತುL Tಕ ಪv Nೊರ ೆ
ಂ’ದYರು <ಾನು Nೊರ ೆ ಬಂದ ತ ಣ .ಾ ನ ಕೂ H.ೊಂಡು ನನD Tಕ ಪvನ ಮ<ೆ ೆ
ಕ/ೆದು.ೊಂಡು ಬಂದರು, ಸದ +gಾರ7ಾZ ನಮF ಮ<ೆಯವರು +gಾ Hbಾಗ ಊ ೆ
Nೋಗು’LbೆYೕ7ೆ, pಾ/ೋ ‘ೕ .ೊಂdbಾY/ೆ ಮತುL ಅವರ ಕGಾ) ಮುZH ಬರುKಾL/ೆ ಎಂದು
NೇಳSKಾL ೩ ‘ಂಗಳS ಕ ೆcತು ಅವರು ಬರ ಲ Nೆದ .ೆcಂದ ಹುಟj ಬiೆjಯ ೇ
ಬ ಾ ಂದ ಬಂbೆ.
ಆದY ಂದ ೕಲ ಂಡ +ಷಯ.ೆ ಸಂಬಂ_HದಂKೆ WÀ£À ¨ÁAದವರ
yಾ&”)H.ೊಳS`ವabೇ<ೆಂದ/ೆ ನನD ಗಂಡ<ಾದ /ಾಘ1 , ನನD ಅKೆLpಾದ Kೈ ೇಶ3 , ನನD
Gಾವ<ಾದ Hಲಂಬು 2ೆಲ3ಂ, ನನD ಅKೆLಯ Kಾc 7ೆ• ಮ’ ಮತುL ಅವರ yೆ&ೕಯHpಾದ
ಐಶ3ಯ) ರವರ +ರುದ• .ಾನೂನುಕ&ಮ ಜರುZH ನನ ೆ <ಾ@ಯ .ೊdಸ=ೇಕು ಎಂದು
yಾ&”)H.ೊಳS`KೆLೕ<ೆ.”
A cursory perusal at the complaint would clearly indicate that
all the allegations are against two persons. One the husband,
the other the alleged paramour of the husband. The further
contention is when the letters between the husband and the
paramour was put before the parents, the parents did not take
any action. Even the grandmother who stays in Coimbatore had
instigated the husband to demand dowry and torture the
complainant. Therefore, all these names spring in the
complaint. Whether on these ingredients, the investigation
should be permitted to be continued or otherwise is necessary
to be noticed.
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
10. Section 498A of the IPC reads as follows:
“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 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.”
Section 498A deals with cruelty by family members towards
demand of dowry. The interpretation of Section 498A of the
IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
matter. The Apex Court in KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM
v. STATE OF BIHAR1 has held as follows:
“Issue Involved
11. Having perused the relevant facts and
contentions made by the Appellants and
Respondents, in our considered opinion, the
foremost issue which requires determination in
the instant case is whether allegations made
against the in-laws Appellants are in the
nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore
liable to be quashed?
12. Before we delve into greater detail on the
nature and content of allegations made, it becomes
pertinent to mention that incorporation of section
498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty
committed upon a woman by her husband and
her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state
intervention. However, it is equally true, that in
recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country
has also increased significantly and there is a greater
disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of
marriage, now, more than ever. This has
resulted in an increased tendency to employ
provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle
personal scores against the husband and his
relatives.
13. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and
Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2018) 10 SCC 472, has
observed:-
1
2022 SCC OnLine SC 162
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024HC-KAR
“14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute
with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the
hands of husband or his relatives against a wife
particularly when such cruelty had potential to
result in suicide or murder of a woman as
mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons
of the Act46 of 1983. The expression ‘cruelty’ in
Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the
woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury
(mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment
with a view to coerce her to meet
unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern
that large number of cases continue to be filed
under already referred to some of the statistics
from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had
earlier noticed the fact that most of such
complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over
trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona
fide. At the time of filing of the complaint,
implications and consequences are not visualized.
At times such complaints lead to uncalled for
harassment not only to the accused but also to the
complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the
chances of settlement.”
14. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this
court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.
(2014) 8 SCC 273), it was also observed:-
“4. There is a phenomenal increase in
matrimonial disputes in recent years. The
institution of marriage is greatly revered in
this country. Section 498-AIPC was introduced
with avowed object to combat the menace of
harassment to a woman at the hands of her
husband and his relatives. The fact that Section
498-AIPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence
has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024HC-KAR
provisions that are used as weapons rather than
shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to
harass is to get the husband and his relatives
arrested under this provision. In a quite number of
cases, bed- ridden grand-fathers and grand-
mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad
for decades are arrested.”
15. Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of
Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667, it has also been
observed:-
“32. It is a matter of common experience that most
of these complaints under section 498AIPC are filed
in the heat of the moment over trivial issues
without proper deliberations. We come across a
large number of such complaints which are not
even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At
the same time, rapid increase in the number of
genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a
matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have
enormous social responsibility and obligation to
ensure that the social fiber of family life is not
ruined or demolished. They must ensure that
exaggerated versions of small incidents
should not be reflected in the criminal
complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed
either on their advice or with their concurrence.
The learned members of the Bar who belong to a
noble profession must maintain its noble traditions
and should treat every complaint under section
498Aas a basic human problem and must make
serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at
an amicable resolution of that human problem.
They must discharge their duties to the best of
their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and
tranquility of the society remains intact. The
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024HC-KAR
members of the Bar should also ensure that one
complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the
complaint the implications and consequences are
not properly visualized by the complainant that
such complaint can lead to insurmountable
harassment, agony and pain to the
complainant, accused and his close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the
truth and punish the guilty and protect the
innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task
in majority of these complaints. The tendency of
implicating husband and all his immediate
relations is also not uncommon. At times, even
after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to
ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with
these complaints and must take pragmatic
realities into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases. The allegations of
harassment of husband’s close relations who
had been living in different cities and never
visited or rarely visited the place where
the complainant resided would have an
entirely different complexion. The allegations of
the complaint are required to be scrutinized with
great care and circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and protracted
criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and
bitterness in the relationship amongst the
parties. It is also a matter of common
knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if
the husband or the husband’s relations had to
remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024HC-KAR
chances of amicable settlement altogether. The
process of suffering is extremely long and painful.”
16. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr.
(2012) 10 SCC 741, it was observed:-
“21. It would be relevant at this stage to take
note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in
the matter of G.V. Raovs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors.
reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a
matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the
High Court should have quashed the complaint
arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein
all family members had been roped into the
matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set
aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which
we entirely agree that:
“there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute
in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony,
main purpose of which is to enable the young
couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But
little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which
often assume serious proportions resulting in
heinous crimes in which elders of the
family are also involved with the result that
those who could have counselled and brought
about rapprochement are rendered helpless on
their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case.
There are many reasons which need not be
mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial
litigation so that the parties may ponder over their
defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by
mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a
court of law where it takes years and years to
conclude and in that process the parties lose their
“young” days in chasing their cases in different
courts.” The view taken by the judges in this
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024HC-KAR
matter was that the courts would not encourage
such disputes.”
17. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana
(2018) 14 SCC 452, it was also observed that:-
“6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding
against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to
matrimonial dispute sand dowry deaths. The
relatives of the husband should not be roped in on
the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific
instances of their involvement in the crime are
made out.”
18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse of
section498A IPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes, without analysing the
long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant
as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the
said judgments that false implication by way of
general omnibus allegations made in the course of
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in
misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by
way of its judgments has warned the courts from
proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the
husband when no prima facie case is made out
against them.
19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of
the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that
general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The
complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her
mentally and threatened her of terminating her
pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct
allegations have been made against either of the Appellants
herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations
made against them. This simply leads to a
situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played
by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The
allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at
best be said to have been made out on account of
small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned,
since he has not appealed against the order of the High
court, we have not examined the veracity of
allegations made against him. However, as far as
the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made
against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant
prosecution.
20. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of
harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a
previous FIR. Respondent No. 1 i.e., the State of Bihar,
contends that the present FIR pertained to offences
committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by
the husband Md. Ikram before the Ld. Principal Judge
Purnea, to not harass the Respondent wife herein
for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite
the assurances, all accused continued their
demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that
the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore
the FIR in question herein dated 01.04.19, is
distinct and independent, and cannot be termed
as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17.
21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the
two FIRs may constitute two independent instances,
based on separate transactions, the present
complaint fails to establish specific allegations
against the in-laws of the Respondent wife.
Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear
allegations against the in-laws Appellants would
simply result in an abuse of the process of law.
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant
circumstances and in the absence of any specific role
attributed to the accused appellants, it would be
unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the
tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and
omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a
situation where the relatives of the complainant’s
husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been
highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a
criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also
inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and
such an exercise must therefore be
discouraged.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The said judgment is subsequently followed in plethora of
judgments of the Apex Court on the issue.
11. The Apex Court in the case of BELIDE SWAGATH
KUMAR v. STATE OF TELANGANA2, 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.
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2890
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024HC-KAR
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 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):
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024HC-KAR
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 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
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
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 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
– 24 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
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 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.
– 25 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
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
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
– 26 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
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 order of
– 27 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
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.”
– 28 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
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 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:
“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
– 29 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024HC-KAR
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
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 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
– 30 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024HC-KAR
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)
12. The Apex Court in the case of MARAM NIRMALA v.
STATE OF TELANGANA3, has held as follows:
“….. ….. …..
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
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2913
– 31 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
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.
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
– 32 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024HC-KAR
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
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 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
– 33 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024HC-KAR
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 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)
– 34 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
13. In the light of the judgments rendered by the Apex
Court as quoted hereinabove and the unequivocal facts that are
noticed hereinabove, permitting investigation even against
these family members accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 particularly,
against the accused no. 4 who is the grandmother of the 1st
accused, would on the face of it, become an abuse of the
process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
– 35 –
NC: 2026:KHC:8376
CRL.P No. 3114 of 2024
HC-KAR
(ii) The FIR in Crime No.13 of 2024 pending on the
file of VII Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and
JMfC at Mysuru stands quashed qua the
petitioners.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
BKP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27
