ADVERTISEMENT
Karnataka High Court
Smt Sumithra vs State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on :05.03.2026
Pronounced on :25.03.2026 R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12989 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT.SUMITHRA
W/O JAGANNATH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
2 . SRI JAGANNATH,
S/O DODDASHESHAIH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 ARE
RESIDENTS OF NO.140, SHWETADRI,
7TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD STAGE,
7TH MAIN ROAD, DR. CORNER
GOKULAM, 3RD STAGE,
MYSURU - 570 002.
3 . SMT. J SHWETHA
W/O VINAY KUMAR V.,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.34
BLOCK 2, MADHUVANA LAYOUT,
SRIRAMPURA 2ND STAGE,
MYSURU - 570 002.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.KEERTHI KRISHNA REDDY, ADVOCATE )
2
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
BASAVESHWARANAGARA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT. RAJANI,
W/O TEJAS,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.002,
NAVAMI JYOTSNA APARTMENT,
MODEL, LIC COLONY,
3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK,
BASAVESHWARANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 079.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SMT.DESIREE M.PAIS, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 )
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.23089/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDL.
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 506 AND 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 (ANNEXURE-A) REGISTERED ON
THE BASIS OF CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE
BASAWESHWARANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU IN CRIME
NO.333/2018; b) QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY
THE BASAWESHVARANAGARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU,
DATED 12.08.2021, IN CR.NO.333/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
3
498A, 506 AND 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 (ANNEXURE-B) NOW PENDING IN
C.C.NO.23089/2021 BEFORE THE XXIV ACMM COURT BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.03.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners/accused 2 to 4 are at the doors of this Court
calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.23089 of 2021 pending
before the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru
arising out of crime in Crime No.333 of 2018 registered for offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act' for short).
2. Heard Smt. Keerthi Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Desiree M.Pais,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
4
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
Accused Nos.1 and 4 are the son and daughter respectively of
petitioners 1 and 2. 2nd respondent is the complainant, daughter-
in-law of petitioners 1 and 2. Accused No.1 and the complainant got
married on 20-04-2018. Barely 6 months after the marriage, the
relationship between accused No.1 and the complainant floundered.
The floundering of relationship between the two leads the
complainant to the jurisdictional Police to register a complaint
alleging cruelty by the husband, accused No.1 and mother-in-law,
father-in-law and sister-in-law on the plea of demand of dowry.
This becomes a crime in Crime No.333 of 2018. The police conduct
investigation and file a charge sheet against four persons as
accused, to be tried for the aforesaid offences. The petitioners,
mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law are now before the
Court calling in question registration of criminal case in
C.C.No.23089 of 2021 and its continuance.
4. The learned counsel Smt. Keerthi Krishna Reddy appearing
for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the relationship
between accused No.1 and the complainant has failed on its own
5
accord. The petitioners who are mother-in-law, father-in-law and
sister-in-law who do not reside with the complainant are drawn into
the web of proceedings without any rhyme or reason. She would
take this Court to the documents appended to the petition seeking
to demonstrate that there is not an iota of ingredient of the
offences so alleged against these petitioners. She would contend
that the husband is not before the Court. It is for him to defend the
action of any allegation made by the complainant, his wife. She
would seek to place reliance upon plethora of judgments rendered
by the Apex Court on the issue, to buttress her submission that
permitting further trial in the case would become an abuse of the
process of law.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent/complainant would vehemently refute the submission in
contending that a perusal at the complaint or the summary of the
charge sheet would clearly indicate all the ingredients of offences so
alleged against all of them, be it Sections 498A, 34 of the IPC or
under the Act. There is a clear demand of dowry. The relationship
between the couple fell apart barely after six months and ample
6
evidence is produced to demonstrate collective cruelty by all these
petitioners. The sister-in-law who even used to visit the house also
played a role along with her parents in instigating accused No.1 to
meet cruelty on the wife, as also demand of dowry. She submits
that Police after investigation have filed charge sheet before the
Court way back in the year 2021. The crime is of the year 2018.
The matter is at the stage of hearing before charge. Therefore, this
Court at this juncture should not interdict the trial and it is for the
petitioners to come out clean in a full-blown trial.
6. Both, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the 2nd
respondent, have in unison contended that several talks to mediate
between the parties, even at the instance of the Court have failed.
7. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would also
toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant
to contend that the Police after investigation have filed a charge
sheet and against the mother-in-law and the father-in-law in
particular, there are allegations of demand of dowry. Therefore, this
Court should not lend its protective hand to the petitioners at this
7
stage. It is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full-blown trial.
Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Additional
State Public Prosecutor in unison, seek dismissal of the petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The
relationship between the protagonists in the issue is afore-narrated.
The husband/accused No.1 is not before the Court. Other accused
before the Court are the mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-
law. The marriage between accused No.1 and the complainant
happens on 20-04-2018. Six months thereafter emerges the
complaint by the wife/2nd respondent. Since the entire issue is now
triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the
complaint. It reads as follows:
".... .... ....
ಷಯ:- ವರದ ೆ ರುಕುಳ ೕಡು ರುವ ನನ ಗಂಡ ಾದ ೇಜ , ಅ ೆ
ಸು ತ , !ಾವ ".ಜಗ ಾ #, ಾ$ %ೆ&ೕತ ರವರ ರುದ' ಸೂಕ
)ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ)ೈ,ೊಳ-.ವಂ ೆ ದೂರು.
*****
8
ಈ 0ೕಲ2ಂಡ 3ಾಸದ45 ಾನು ತಂ6ೆ- ಾ7ಯವ8ೊಂ$,ೆ 9ಾಸ9ಾ:ದು;, ನಮ< ತಂ6ೆ-
ಾ7,ೆ ಾನು =>ಯ ಮಗ3ಾ:ರು ೇ ೆ. ನಮ,ೆ !ಾ?8ೇ@ ¨ÉÆæÃಕA 6ೇವ8ಾ@ ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಈ
ಸಂಬಂಧ ಏಪFGHರುತ6ೆ. ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧವI ನಮ,ೆ Jೊಸ ಸಂಬಂಧ9ಾ:ರುತ6ೆ. =ೕ:ರುವ45
$ ಾಂಕ:27.11.2017 ರ45 ನನ ಮದು9ೆಯ !ಾತುಕ ೆಯನು ನಮ< ಮ ೆKಾದ ಬಸ9ೇಶ&ರ
ನಗರದ45 ನಮ< ಸಂಬಂMಕ8ಾದ ಪ NಾO, 9ೆಂಕPೇQ, %ೇಖA Jಾಗೂ ನನ ತಂ6ೆಯ Nೆ ೕ=ತ8ಾದ
ಾಗ8ಾಜು ರವರು Sಾಗವ=Tದು;, ನನ ಗಂಡನ ಕUೆ7ಂದ ಅವರ ಾ7, ತಂ6ೆ, ತಂ: Jಾಗೂ ನನ
ಯಜ!ಾನ8ಾದ ೇಜ ರವರುಗಳ- ಮದು9ೆ !ಾತುಕ ೆ,ೆ Sಾಗವ=Tದ;ರು, ಆ ಸಂದಭFದ45 ಈ
0ೕಲ2ಂಡ ನನ ಗಂಡ, ಗಂಡನ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು ರೂ.25 ಲ[ ಹಣ, 0ೖತುಂ^ಾ ಒಡ9ೆ, 15 8ೇ`ೆ<
Tೕ8ೆಗಳ-, 300,ಾ ಂ ಬಂ,ಾರದ ಒಡ9ೆ, 3 )ೆ.a. ^ೆb.ಯ Nಾ!ಾನುಗಳ- Jಾಗೂ ಲ4c ಮಹd
eಾ?fೇ ನ45 ಮದು9ೆ !ಾ")ೊಡ^ೇ)ೆಂದು Jಾಗೂ ಅ0ೕ>)ಾದ45 ಮ ೆಯನು ^ಾ",ೆ,ೆ
)ೊ"T)ೊಡ^ೇ)ೆಂದು ಒ ಾ7Tದರು. ಇದ)ೆ2 ನನ ತಂ6ೆ- ಾ7ಗಳ- ನಮ< ಕಷHಗಳನು
Jೇb)ೊಂಡರು ಆ ಸಂದಭFದ45 ಹುಡುಗನ ತಂ6ೆ- ಾ7ಗಳ- ಾವIಗಳ- ನಮ< ಮಗನನು Jೆಚುi ಖಚುF
!ಾ" ಓ$T6ೆ;ೕ9ೆ, ಅಲ56ೆ ಾವIಗಳ- Nಾಲವನು !ಾ")ೊಂ"6ೆ;ೕ9ೆ, ೕವIಗಳ- 0ೕfೆ Jೇbದಂ ೆ
ವರದ ೆಯನು )ೊGH6ೆ;ೕ ಆದ8ೆ ಮ< ಮಗಳ- ಅ0ೕ>)ಾದ45 ಸುಖ9ಾ:ರು ಾ3ೆ ಎಂದು ನನ ತಂ6ೆ
ಾ7ಯನು ನಂlTದರು. ಆ )ಾರಣ$ಂದ ನನ ಭ ಷ?ದ ಬ,ೆm ನನ ತಂ6ೆ- ಾ7ಯವರು nೕoT
PÉýzÀ ವರದ ೆಯನು )ೊಡಲು ಒpq)ೊಂಡರು. ಅದರಂ ೆ $ ಾಂಕ:07.12.2017 ರಂದು
ಐ.G.T.,ಾUೆF Kಾ ಇ45 ನನ si ಾಥF9ಾ7ತು. ಈ uದfೇ !ಾತುಕ ೆಯಂ ೆ ನನ ತಂ6ೆ-
ಾ7ಯರು Jಾಗೂ ನನ ತಮ<ನ vಾ ೆ7ಂದ ನನ ಅ ೆKಾದ ಸು ಾ ರವರ vಾ ೆ
ನಂ.625501527860, ಐ.T.ಐ.T.ಐ. ^ಾ?ಂw ಈ vಾ ೆ,ೆ ನನ ತಮ< ಾದ ರಜc ರವರು 3
ಲ[ದಂ ೆ 2 ^ಾ> ಒಟುH ರೂ.6 ಲ[ ಗಳನು Jಾಗೂ ನನ ಾ7 $ ಾಂಕ:08.01.2018,
16.01.2018, 19.01.2018, 27.02.2018 ಈ ಧ $ ಾಂಕಗಳಂದು ಒPಾH8ೆ ರೂ.17 ಲ[ಗಳನು
ನನ ಅ ೆಯ vಾ ೆ,ೆ ವರದ ೆKಾ: ವ,ಾF7Tರು ಾ8ೆ. ಅಲ56ೆ 2 ಲ[ ಹಣವನು ಬPೆH, ಸೂx
Jಾಗೂ ಇ ತರ ಖಚುFಗb,ೆಂದು ನಗ6ಾ: ಪUೆ$ರು ಾ8ೆ ಒPಾH8ೆ ರೂ.25 ಲ[ಗಳ ಹಣವನು
ವರದ ೆKಾ: ನನ ತಂ6ೆ- ಾ77ಂದ ಪUೆದು)ೊಂ"ರು ಾ8ೆ. ಅಲ56ೆ ನನ ಗಂಡ, ಅ ೆ, !ಾವ
Jಾಗೂ ಾ$ ಯವರ )ೋ>)ೆಯಂ ೆ ಲ4c ಮಹdನ45 ಜೃಂಭ ೆ7ಂದ ಮದು9ೆ !ಾ")ೊGHದು;,
Jಾಗೂ ಐ.G.T.,ಾUೇF Kಾದ45 si ಾಥF !ಾ")ೊGHದು;, ಇ6ೆಲ5ದಕೂ2 ಸ> ಸು!ಾರು ರೂ.50
ಲ[ ಖಚುF !ಾ"ರು ಾ8ೆ. ಅಲ56ೆ 300 ,ಾ ಂ ಬಂ,ಾರದ ಒಡ9ೆ Jಾ ದು;, 3 )ೆ.a.^ೆb.ಯ
Nಾ!ಾನುಗಳನು )ೊGHದು;, ಅಂದ8ೆ 6ೊಡz $ೕಪ-2, ಒಂದು ತPೆH, {ೆಂಬು, ಒಂದು ಹೂ ನ ಬುGH,
fೋಟ, ಗಂPೆ, ೕಥFದ ಬಟHಲು, ತುಪqದ $ೕಪ, ಮಂಗ3ಾರ ತPೆH ಮುಂ ಾದವIಗಳ- Jಾಗೂ 10
)ೆ.a. THೕd eಾ ೆ ಗಳ- ಮತು 15 8ೇ`ೆ< Tೕ8ೆಗಳನು ನನ ಗಂಡ, ಅ ೆ-!ಾವ Jಾಗೂ ಾ$ ಯವರ
9
^ೇ")ೆಯಂ ೆ ಮದು9ೆ )ಾಲದ45 ವರದ ೆKಾ: ೕಡುವ ಮೂಲಕ ಜೃಂಭ ೆ7ಂದ
ೆರ9ೇ>Tರು ಾ8ೆ.
ಮದು9ೆKಾದ ನಂತರ ಾನು 0ೖಸೂ>ನ45ರುವ ನನ ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆ,ೆ Jೋ6ೆನು, ಅ45
ಸು!ಾರು 19 $ನಗಳ- ಒPಾH: aೕವನ !ಾ"6ೆವI. ಆಗ ನನ ನು ಧ 6ೇ9ಾಲಯಗb,ೆ
ಕ8ೆದು)ೊಂಡು Jೋಗು ದ;ರು. ಆಗ ನನ,ೆ ಇ ಲ5ದ !ಾನTಕ =ಂNೆಯನು ೕಡು ದ;ರು. =ೕ:ರುವ45
$ ಾಂಕ:09.05.2018 ರಂದು ನನ ಗಂಡ ಅ0ೕ>)ಾ)ೆ2 Jೋ:ರು ಾ ೆ. ಈ ಸಂದಭFದ45 ಾನು ನನ
ಅ ೆ-!ಾವಂ$ರ }ೊ ೆ 0ೖಸೂ>ನ45 9ಾಸ9ಾ:ದು;, ಆ ಸಂದಭFದ45 ನನ,ೆ ನನ ಅ ೆ, !ಾವ, ಾ$
ಈ ಮೂರೂ ಜನರೂ ನ ಂದ ಇನೂ Jೆoiನ ವರದ ೆKಾ: ಹಣ, eಾ ೆ , ಬಂ,ಾರದ ಒಡ9ೆಗಳನು
ತರುವಂ ೆ pೕ"ಸು ದ;ರು. ಇ6ೆಲ5ದಕೂ2 ನನ ಗಂಡ ಾದ ೇಜ ರವರು ಅ0ೕ>)ಾ$ಂದ ~ೕ•
!ಾಡುವ ಮೂಲಕ ಕುಮ<ಕು2 ೕಡು ದ;ನು. ಾನು ಇಂದfಾ5 ಾ3ೆ ನನ ಸಂNಾರ
ಸ>Jೋಗಬಹು6ೆಂದು ಅ>ತು ಅವರು )ೊಡುವಂತಹ ವರದ ೆ ರುಕುಳ, !ಾನTಕ, 6ೈ=ಕ
ರುಕುಳಗಳನು ಸ=T)ೊಂ"6ೆ;, ಅಲ56ೆ ನನ ನು ನನ Nೆ ೕ=ತರು Jಾಗೂ ಸಂಬಂMಕರ ಮುಂ6ೆ ೕನು
ದಪq:$;ೕKಾ ಅಂದ8ೆ PಾPಾ ಸುuೕ ತರ ಎಂದು ನನ ನು ಂ$ಸು ದ;ರು. ಈ ಮ€ೆ? ಜೂ• ಂಗಳ45
ನನ ಗಂಡ ಾದ ೇಜ 0ೖಸೂ>,ೆ 9ಾಪಸು• ಬಂ$ದು;, ಸು!ಾರು 20 $ನಗಳ- 0ೖಸೂ>ನ45
ನ ೊ ಂ$,ೆ 9ಾಸ9ಾ:ದ;ನು, ಆ ಸಂದಭFದ45 ನನ ನು ಅಪ>oತಳಂ ೆ ೋ")ೊಳ-. ದ;, ಅಲ56ೆ ಾನು
ದಪq:6ೆ;ೕ ೆ ನನ ನು ಎ45Kಾದರೂ JೊರಗUೆ ಕ8ೆದು)ೊಂಡು Jೋದ8ೆ ತನ,ೆ ಅವ!ಾನ ಆಗುತ6ೆ
ಎಂದು ನನ,ೆ ಹಲ9ಾರು ^ಾ> ಂ$Tರು ಾ ೆ, ಅಲ56ೆ, ಈ {ಾರವನು ದಶF• ರವರ ಮುಂ6ೆಯೂ
ಾನು ದಪq:6ೆ;ೕ ೆ ಎಂಬ {ಾರವನು Jೇbರು ಾ ೆ ದಶF• ರವ>ಂದ ಸದ> {ಾರವನು
bದು)ೊಂ"ರು ೇ ೆ. ಆದ;>ಂದ ನನ,ೆ ತುಂ^ಾ !ಾನTಕ ೋವI ಉಂPಾ:ರುತ6ೆ. ಅಲ56ೆ ಸದ>
{ಾರವನು ನನ ತಂ6ೆ- ಾ7ಗb,ೆ bಸfಾ: ಅವರು ಇಂದfಾ5, ಾ3ೆ ಸ>Jೋಗುತ6ೆ, ೕ ೇ
Jೊಂ$)ೊಂಡು Jೋಗು ಎಂದು ನನ,ೆ ಬು$'9ಾದ Jೇಳ- ದ;ರು. ನಂತರ ನನ ಯಜ!ಾನರು ಜುfೈ
ಂಗಳ45 ಅ0ೕ>)ಾ)ೆ2 Jೋದರು, ಆ ಸಂದಭFದ45 ನನ ನು ಆ`ಾಡ)ೆ2ಂದು ನನ ನು ನನ
ತವರುಮ ೆKಾದ ಬಸ9ೇಶ&ರ ನಗರ)ೆ2 ಕಳ-=T)ೊಟHರು. ಆ ಸಂದಭFದ45 ನನ ಗಂಡನು ನ ೊ ಂ$,ೆ
ಹಲ9ಾರು ^ಾ> ದೂರ9ಾƒ 0Nೇ@ಗಳನು )ೆಟH6ಾ;: ಕಳ-=Tರು ಾ ೆ. ಅಲ56ೆ ಆ`ಾಢ ಮು:ದ
ನಂತರ ನನ ತಂ6ೆ- ಾ7ಗಳ- ನನ ನು ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆ,ೆ ಕ8ೆದು)ೊಂಡು Jೋ:ದು;, ಆ ಸಂದಭFದ45
ಈಗ ಬರುವIದು ^ೇಡ ನನ ಮಗನು ಬಂದ 0ೕfೆ ಬ ಎಂದು )ೆಟH6ಾ: ನUೆT)ೊಂಡು ನಮ<ನು
9ಾಪಸು• ಕಳ-=Tರು ಾ8ೆ. ನಂತರ ಅಂದ8ೆ $ ಾಂಕ:22.10.2018 ರಂದು ನನ ತಂ6ೆ- ಾ7ಗಳ-,
ಾನು 0ೖಸೂ>,ೆ Jೋ: ನನ,ೆ Jಾ )ೊಳ.ಲು ಬPೆH Jಾಗೂ ಒಡ9ೆಗಳನು )ೊ" ಎಂದು )ೇಳfಾ:,
ಅವIಗಳನು ಮಗನ )ೈಯ45 ಕಳ-=¹zÉÝêÉAzÀÄ ನನ ಅ ೆ Jೇbದರು. ನಂತರ nೕoT, ಆ7ತು ಸಂ}ೆ
5.00 ಗಂPೆ,ೆ ಬ ಎಂದು Jೇbದರು, ಅ6ೇ $ನ 5.00 ಗಂPೆ,ೆ ಾವI ~ೕ• !ಾ"6ಾಗ
ಸದ>ಯವರು ~ೕ•ನು ೆ,ೆ$ರುವI$ಲ5, M ಇಲ56ೆ 9ಾಪಸು• ಬಂ$ರು ೇ9ೆ. ಅಲ56ೆ, ಈ >ೕ ನನ,ೆ
10
ಇನೂ Jೆoiನ ವರದ ೆKಾ: ಹಣ, ಬಂ,ಾರ ತರುವಂ ೆ ಒ ಾಯ !ಾ" ನನ ನು ಅ9ಾಚ? ಶಬ;ಗbಂದ
ಂ$ಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ =ಂTTರು ಾ8ೆ ಅಲ56ೆ ನನ ಅ ೆ-!ಾವಂ$ರು 8ಾಜ ೕಯ9ಾ: ಪ ಬಲ8ಾ:ದು;,
Jಾಗೂ ಸ!ಾಜ...ತುಕ ವ? ಗಳ ಪ>ಚಯ ದು;, ಇವರು KಾವI6ೇ ಸಂದಭFದ45 ನನ,ೆ Jಾಗೂ ನನ
ತಂ6ೆ- ಾ7ಗb,ೆ ೊಂದ8ೆಯನು ಂಟು !ಾಡುವ ಸಂಭವ ಇರುತ6ೆ. ಅ6ೇ >ೕ ಹಲವರ ಮುಂ6ೆ
Jೇb)ೊಂ"ರು ಾ8ೆ ಈ ಎfಾ5 ವ?ವJಾರಗಳ- ಬಸ9ೇಶ&ರ ನಗರದ ನªÀÄä ತಂ6ೆ- ಾ7ಗಳ ಮ ೆಯ45
!ಾತುಕ ೆ, si ಾಥF ಆ:ರುವIದ>ಂದ ಸದ> 9ಾದವI ತಮ< ಬಸ9ೇಶ&ರ †ಾ ಾ 9ಾ?p,ೆ
ಒಳಪGHರುತ6ೆ. Jಾಗೂ ಇ$ೕಗ ನನ ಗಂಡನು ಸದ?ದfೆ5ೕ ಅ0ೕ>)ಾ)ೆ2 Jೋಗುವವ ದು;, =ೕ,ಾ:
ತ[ಣ9ೇ ಆತನ ರುದ' ಸೂಕ )ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ ಜರು:ಸ^ೇ)ೆಂತಲೂ Jಾಗೂ eಾ ‡ೕxF
ವಶಪ"T)ೊಳ.^ೇ)ೆಂದು )ೋರು ೇ ೆ.
ಆದುದ;>ಂದ ಈ 0ೕಲ2ಂಡ >ೕ ವರದ ೆ ಪUೆದು ನನ,ೆ !ಾನTಕ9ಾ:, 6ೈ=ಕ9ಾ:
=ಂTT, ೊಂದ8ೆ )ೊGHರುವ ನನ ಗಂಡ ೇಜ , ಅ ೆKಾದ ಸು ತ , !ಾವ ಜಗ ಾ # Jಾಗೂ
ಾ$ %ೆ&ೕತ ರವರುಗಳ ರುದ' ಸೂಕ )ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ ೆ,ೆದು)ೊಳ-.ವ ಮೂಲಕ ನ <ಂದ ಪUೆ$ರುವ
ರೂ.25 ಲ[ ಹಣ, 15 8ೇ`ೆ< Tೕ8ೆಗಳ-, ಬPೆH, ಬಂ,ಾರದ ಒಡ9ೆಗಳ-, eಾ ೆ Nಾ!ಾನುಗಳ-, ಮ ತ8ೆ
ವಸುಗಳನು ನಮ,ೆ 9ಾಪಸು• )ೊ"T)ೊಡ^ೇ)ೆಂತಲೂ ತಮ<45 ನಂ T)ೊಳ-. ೇ ೆ. ಅಲ56ೆ ನನ,ೆ
ಅಗತ? ರ[ ೆ )ೊಡ^ೇ)ೆಂತಲೂ )ೋ>)ೊಳ-. ೇ ೆ.
ವಂದ ೆಗ3ೆˆ ಂ$,ೆ,
ಇಂ ತಮ< %ಾ&T,
ಸ=/-
(gÀd¤.J)"
It is the case of the complainant that after marriage which takes
place on 20-04-2018, the wife moved into the house of her
husband and together lived for 19 days and on 09-05-2018 her
husband on his avocation leaves to America and the complainant is
said to have been residing with the mother-in-law and the father-
11
law, petitioners 1 and 2. It is here the fulcrum of the allegation
spring.
10. However, a close reading of the complaint indicates that a
common place domestic discord and minor skirmishes, not
uncommon in a joint family setting, have been elevated to the
pedestal of criminality. The allegations are largely general and
omnibus in nature, devoid of specific particulars as to time, date or
overt acts. Even in respect of dowry demands, the narration
pertains predominantly to pre-marital discussions spanning
between December 2017 to February 2018 ostensibly in the context
of marriage expenses. The complaint thus, does not delineate any
concrete demand of dowry attributable to the petitioners, nor does
it articulate conduct, meeting the statutory threshold of cruelty, as
obtaining under Section 498A of the IPC.
11. The afore-mentioned complaint becomes a crime in crime
No.333 of 2018 for offences punishable under Sections 498A r/w 34
of the IPC and under the Act. The Police conduct investigation and
12
file a charge sheet against these petitioners. The summary of the
charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.7 reads as follows:
"ಈ 6ೋ`ಾ8ೋಪ ಾಪGHಯ )ಾಲಂ ನಂ: 6 ರ45 ನಮೂ$Tರುವ Nಾ -2 ಮತು Nಾ -3
ರವರು 2017 ೇ ಇಸ ಯ45 ಅವರ ಮಗ3ಾದ Nಾ -1 ರವ>,ೆ ಮದು9ೆ !ಾಡfೆಂದು, ವರನನು
ಹುಡು )ೊಡುವಂ ೆ Nಾ -5 ರವ>,ೆ bTದು;, Nಾ -5 ರವರು ಈ {ಾರವನು )ಾಲಂ ನಂ: 4 ರ45
ನಮೂ$Tರುವ ಆ8ೋpತರುಗb,ೆ bTದು;, ಅನಂತರದ $ನಗಳ45 ಎ-2 ಮತು ಎ-3 ಆ8ೋpಗಳ-
Nಾ -1 ರವರನು ^ೆಂಗಳˆ>ನ .2 ಯುl ¹n ಬbಯ )ಾŒ ¸ÉÌöÊA,ೆ ಕ8ೆT)ೊಂಡು !ಾತ ಾ", Nಾ -
1 ರವರ u^ೈd ನಂಬA ಅನು ಪUೆದು)ೊಂಡು Jೋ: ಎ-2 ಆ8ೋpಯು Nಾ -1 ರವರ }ೊ ೆ
ಸು!ಾರು 3 ಂಗಳ-ಗಳ )ಾಲ ~ೕ ನ45 !ಾತ ಾಡು ಾ, Nಾ -1 ರವರ ಮ ೆಯ ಆ•Fಕ
ಪ>TŽ ಯನು bದು)ೊಂಡು $ ಾಂಕ: 23-11-2017 ರಂದು ಎ-1 >ಂದ ಎ-4 ಆ8ೋpಗಳ- ಇ6ೇ
^ೆಂಗಳˆರು ನಗರ ಬಸ9ೇಶ&ರನಗರ ‡4ೕ †ಾ ಾ ಸರಹ$;ನ ಬಸ9ೇಶ&ರನಗರ 3 ೇ NೆHೕ@, 4 ೇ
^ಾ5w, !ಾUೆd ಎd.ಐ.T )ಾfೋ ಯ ನವ }ೋ ಾ• ಅeಾxF0ಂx ನ eಾ5x ನಂ: 002 )ೆ2
ಬಂದು Nಾ -1 ರವರನು ೋ")ೊಂಡು Jೋ: ಆನಂತರ $ ಾಂಕ: 27-11-2017 ರಂದು ಮ ೆ Nಾ -
1 ರವರ ಮ ೆ,ೆ ಎ-1 >ಂದ ಎ-4 ಆ8ೋpಗಳ- ಅವರ ಸಂಬಂMಕರ }ೊ ೆಯ45 ಬಂದು Nಾ -1 >ಂದ
Nಾ -5 Jಾಗೂ Nಾ -7, >ಂದ Nಾ -10 ರವರ ಸಮ[ಮ ಮದು9ೆ !ಾತುಕ ೆ !ಾ"ದು;, ಆ8ೋpಗಳ-
ಮದು9ೆ !ಾತುಕ ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ45 ವರದ ೆKಾ: 300 ,ಾ ಂ oನ , 3 )ೆ.a ^ೆb., 25 ಲ[ ಹಣ, 10
)ೆ.a THೕd eಾ ೆ ಗಳನು , 15 8ೇ`ೆ< Tೕ8ೆಗಳನು )ೊಡುವಂ ೆಯೂ Jಾಗೂ ಐ.G.T ,ಾUೇF Kಾದ45
ಎಂ,ೇ@0ಂx, 0ೖಸೂ>ನ ಲ4ತ ಮಹd eಾ?fೇTನ45 ಮದು9ೆ, ಅ0ೕ>)ಾದ45 ಹುಡುಗ ,ೆ
^ಾ",ೆ ಮ ೆ !ಾ")ೊಡ^ೇಕು ಎಂl ಾ?$Kಾ: ಒ ಾಯ !ಾ" )ೇbದು;, Nಾ -2 ಮತು Nಾ -3
ರವರು ಆ8ೋpಗಳ ಒ ಾಯ$ಂದ $ ಾಂಕ: 07-12-2017 ರಂದು ಸು!ಾರು 9 ಲ[ ರೂಗಳನು ಖಚುF
!ಾ" ಐ.G.T ,ಾUೇF Kಾ JೋPೆdನ45 ಎಂ,ೇ@0ಂx !ಾ")ೊGHದು;, ಆನಂತರ ಆ8ೋpತರು
Nಾ -1 >ಂದ Nಾ -3 Jಾಗೂ Nಾ -5 ರವರನು 0ೖಸೂ>,ೆ ಕ8ೆT)ೊಂಡು ಎ-1 ಆ8ೋpಯು ಲ4ತ
ಮಹd eಾ?fೇ ಬುw !ಾಡಲು 1 ಲ[ ರೂ ನಗದು ಹಣವನು ಪUೆದು ಲ4ತ ಮಹd eಾ?fೇ ಅನು
ಬುw !ಾ"ದು;, ಆನಂತರದ $ನಗಳ45 ಎ-1, ಎ-2 Jಾಗೂ ಎ-3 ಆ8ೋpಗಳ- Nಾ -1, Nಾ -2 ರವ>,ೆ
0ೕ4ಂದ 0ೕfೆ ಕ8ೆಗಳನು !ಾಡು ಾ 25 ಲ[ ರೂ ವರದ ೆ,ಾ: ಒ ಾಯ !ಾಡು ದ;>ಂದ Nಾ -2
ಮತು Nಾ -3 ರವರು Nಾ -1 ರವರ ಒಡ9ೆಗಳನು ಅಡ ಟುH ಅದ>ಂದ ಬಂದ 3 ಲ[ ರೂ ಹಣವನು
$ ಾಂಕ: 15-12-2017 ರಂದು Nಾ -4 ರವರ vಾ ೆ7ಂದ ಎ-2 ಆ8ೋpತರ vಾ ೆ,ೆ ವ,ಾFವ ೆ
!ಾ"ದು;, ಆನಂತರ ಎ-1 >ಂದ ಎ-4 ಆ8ೋpಗಳ- ^ಾ ಉbದ ವರದ ೆ ಹಣವನು ^ೇಗ ೆ
)ೊಡುವಂ ೆ, ಇಲ59ಾದ45 ಮದು9ೆ !ಾ")ೊಳ-.ವI$ಲ5 ಎಂಬು6ಾ: bTದ;>ಂದ Nಾ -2 ರವರು ಅವರ
Jೆಸ>ನ45 ಪಟೂ>ನ45 ಇದ; Nೈಟುಗಳನು ಅ: 0ಂx >aಸHA !ಾ" 45 ಲ[ ರೂಗಳನು Nಾಲ
ಪUೆದು ಆ ಹಣದ45 Nಾ -2 ರವರು $ ಾಂಕ: 08-01-2018 ರಂದು 5 ಲ[, $ ಾಂಕ: 16-01-2018
13
ರಂದು 3 ಲ[, $ ಾಂಕ: 19-01-2018 ರಂದು 3 ಲ[ Jಾಗೂ $ ಾಂಕ: 27-02-2018 ರಂದು 6 ಲ[
ರೂಗಳನು ಎ-2 ಆ8ೋpತರ vಾ ೆ,ೆ Jಾ ದು;, Nಾ -1 ರವರು ಎ-4 ಆ8ೋpತರ vಾ ೆ,ೆ 50, Nಾ ರ
ರೂಗಳನು Jಾಗೂ $ ಾಂಕ: 27-03-2018 ರಂದು Nಾ -4 ರವರು ಎ-2 ರವರ vಾ ೆ,ೆ 3 ಲ[
ರೂಗಳನು Jಾ ದ ಬbಕ $ ಾಂಕ: 19-04-2018 Jಾಗೂ $ ಾಂಕ: 20-04-2018 ರಂದು Nಾ -1
Jಾಗೂ ಎ-1 ಆ8ೋpತರ ಮದು9ೆAiÀÄÄ 0ೖಸೂ>ನ ಲ4ತ ಮಹd eಾ?fೇTನ45 ಹುಡುಗ Jಾಗೂ ಆತನ
ಕUೆಯವರು )ೇbದ;ಂ ೆ ಸು!ಾರು 50 ಲ[ ರೂಗಳನು ಖಚುF !ಾ" ಅದೂ;>Kಾ: ಜರು:ದು;,
ಮದು9ೆಯ ಬbಕ ಆ8ೋpತರು Nಾ -1 ರವರನು 0ೖಸೂರು ನಗರದ . ಪIರಂ ‡4ೕ †ಾ ಾ
ಸರಹ$;ನ ,ೋಕುಲಂ 3 ೇ Nೇ@, 7 ೇ 0ೖ•ನ45ರುವ ಮ ೆ ನಂ: 140 ರ45 ಇ>T)ೊಂಡು ಎ-1 >ಂದ
ಎ-4 ರವರುಗಳ- ಇನು Jೆoiನ ವರದ ೆ ತರುವಂ ೆ, ಇನು Jೆಚುi oನ ದ ಒಡ9ೆ Jಾಗೂ ಆTಯನು
ತರುವಂ ೆ Nಾ -1 ರವ>,ೆ !ಾನTಕ =ಂNೆ ೕ" ಆನಂತರ ಎ-1 ಆ8ೋpಯು Nಾ -1 ರವರನು
ಆ`ಾಡ)ೆ2ಂದು ತವರು ಮ ೆ,ೆ ಕ8ೆದು)ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು lಟುH )ೆಲಸ)ೆ2ಂದು ಅ0ೕ>)ಾ)ೆ2 Jೋ:ದ;,
ಆ`ಾಡ ಮು:ದ 0ೕಲೂ ಆ8ೋpಗಳ- Nಾ -1 ರವರನು ಕ8ೆದು)ೊಂಡು Jೋಗ6ೇ ಇದ;>ಂದ Nಾ -1
ರವರು ಇತ8ೆ Nಾ ಗಳ }ೊ ೆ ಾಲು2 ^ಾ> 0ೖಸೂ>ನ ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆಯ ಬb Jೋ: ಮ ೆ,ೆ
Nೇ>T)ೊಳ-.ವಂ ೆ ^ೇ")ೊಂಡರೂ ಆ8ೋpಗಳ- Nಾ -1 ರವರನು ಮ ೆಯ ಒಳ,ೆ lಟುH)ೊಳ.6ೇ
ಇನು Jೆoiನ ಹಣ ತರ6ೇ Jೋದ8ೆ ಮ ೆ,ೆ Nೇ>T)ೊಳ-.ವI6ೇ ಇಲ59ೆಂದು Jೇb Nಾ -1 ರವರನು
ಮ ೆ,ೆ Nೇ>T)ೊಳ.6ೇ, Nಾ -1 ರವರ ^ೆfೆ^ಾಳ-ವ ಬPೆHಗಳನು , oನ ದ ಒಡ9ೆಗಳನು ಸಹ ೕಡ6ೇ
Nಾ -1 ರವ>,ೆ ರುಕುಳ ೕ"ರುವIದು Jಾಗೂ ಎ-1 ಆ8ೋpಯು Nಾ -1 ರವ>,ೆ )ೇಸನು 9ಾಪಸು•
ೆ,ೆದು)ೊಳ-.ವAvÉ, ಇಲ59ಾದ45 )ೊfೆ !ಾಡುವI6ಾ: aೕವ ^ೆದ>)ೆ Jಾ ರುವIದು ತ vಾ )ಾಲದ45
ಸಂಗ =Tದ Nಾ•ಾ€ಾರಗbಂದ ದೃಢಪGHರುತ6ೆ."
The charge sheet in substance, mirrors the complaint and is further
predicated upon a subsequent statement recorded nearly 3 years
later on 20-02-2021. This supplementary statement appears to
embellish the original allegations. Even otherwise, when the two,
the complaint and the summary, read in tandem, fails to satisfy the
essential ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioners.
Section 498A of the IPC contemplates cruelty of a nature likely to
14
drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury or harassment with
a view to coerce unlawful demands for property. The sine qua non
of the offence is not mere marital discord, but cruelty of a grave
character tied to unlawful demands.
12. If the complaint and summary of charge sheet are read in
juxtaposition, it only speaks of expenditure incurred in the course of
marriage ceremonies. Even if it is taken as correct, cannot in the
absence of cogent material, retroactively transmute into a dowry
demand, so as to implicate every member of the husband's family.
Thus, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law are without
any rhyme or reason dragged into the web of proceedings.
13. Jurisprudence is replete with the judgments of the Apex
Court on the issue, as to whether investigation or trial must be
permitted in such cases.
13.1. The Apex Court in the case of RAJESH CHADDHA v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1, has held as follows:
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1094
15
"..... ..... .....
ANALYSIS
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and having perused the record, the question remains
whether the High Court vide Impugned Order dt. 14.11.2018
whilst exercising its revisionary jurisdiction, was correct in
upholding the conviction of the Appellant under
Section 498A IPC & Section 4 D.P. Act, 1961. In that respect, it
is prudent to examine the statutory provisions, which are as
under:
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.-- Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years
and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-- For the
purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-- (a) any wilful
conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger
to life, limb or 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."
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 subsection (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 : Page 12 of 26 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
16
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."
8. At the outset, an act of 'cruelty' for the purpose
of Section 498A, corresponds to a willful conduct of such
nature, that may cause danger to the life, limb and health
of the woman, which is inclusive of the mental and
physical health and the harassment caused to her, by
coercing her to meet unlawful demands or impossible
standards. Further, the demand for dowry in terms of
Section 3 and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 refers to
both a direct or indirect manner of demand for dowry
made by the husband or his family members. In order to
meet the threshold of the offences under
Section 498A IPC & Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961,
the allegations cannot be ambiguous or made in thin air.
9. In the present case, the allegations made by the
Complainant are vague, omnibus and bereft of any
material particulars to substantiate this threshold. Apart
from claiming that Appellant husband harassed her for
want of dowry, the Complainant has not given any
specific details or described any particular instance of
harassment. The allegations in the FIR, and the
depositions of the prosecution witnesses suggest that on
multiple occasions, the Complainant wife was ousted
from the matrimonial house, and kicked and punched in
the presence of her father, PW-2 herein and she was
17
repeatedly tormented with dowry demands, and when
she was unable to honor them, the Appellant and her
family physically beat her up; whereas she has not
mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the
alleged harassment occurred. It is alleged that the
Complainant suffered a miscarriage, as she fell down,
when the Appellant and her family who pushed her out of
the house; however, no medical document from any
medical institution or hospital or nursery was produced to
substantiate the allegations.
10. Upon carefully considering the record, we find that
apart from the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, there is no
evidence to substantiate the allegations of harassment and acts
of cruelty within the scope of Section 498A of IPC, and
Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961. For this reason, we find merit in
the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, and are
of the considered view that there is no material on record to
establish the allegations of hurt or miscarriage, and of hurt and
criminal intimidation in terms of Section 323 r/w 34 and
Section 506 IPC respectively. The Trial Court has rightly held
that evidence of the Complainant is the only strong evidence
that she sustained injuries on various parts of her body due to
the physical assault by the accused persons, and that there was
no medical examination conducted by the Complainant, so as to
prove that the miscarriage was a consequence of the physical
assault.
11. The Trial Court has indeed applied its judicial mind to
the material on record whilst acquitting the Appellant and the
co-accused parents-in-law for offences under
Section 323 r/w 34 & Section 506 IPC. However, it appears that
the Trial Court had passed the order of conviction of the
Appellant under Section 498A IPC & Section 4 of the D.P. Act,
1961, merely on the possibility that the allegations and the
depositions of the PW-1 corroborated by PW2, are true and
correct. Although one cannot deny the emotional or
mental torture that the Complainant may have undergone
in the marriage, however a cursory or plausible view
cannot be conclusive proof to determine the guilt of an
individual under Section 498A & Section 4 of the D.P. Act,
1961, especially to obviate malicious criminal prosecution
of family members in matrimonial disputes. In this respect,
18
we also cannot ignore that the FIR dt. 20.12.1999 was
registered after the Appellant had filed the Divorce Petition
under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 06.02.1999. In
consideration thereof and that the Complainant had cohabited
with the Appellant only for a period of about a year, it appears
that the FIR registered by the Complainant was not genuine.
12. In respect thereof, the High Court while exercising its
revisionary jurisdiction ought to have examined the correctness
of decision of the Trial Court in light of the material on record,
which reveals nothing incriminatory against the Appellant to
sustain a conviction under Section 498A IPC or Section 4 of
the D.P. Act, 1961. Although we do not agree with the
submission on behalf of the Appellant that the Impugned Order
dt. 14.11.2018 was passed in absentia, however the High Court
was well within its revisionary powers to discern whether an FIR
and the proceedings emanating therefrom were sustainable. In
all certainty, it could have saved 6 years' worth of time for the
Appellant, who has endured litigation for over 20 years as of
today.
13. Notwithstanding the merits of the case, we are
distressed with the manner, the offences under
Section 498A IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act,
1961 are being maliciously roped in by Complainant
wives, insofar as aged parents, distant relatives, married
sisters living separately, are arrayed as accused, in
matrimonial matters. This growing tendency to append
every relative of the husband, casts serious doubt on the
veracity of the allegations made by the Complainant wife
or her family members, and vitiates the very objective of
a protective legislation. The observations made by this
Hon'ble Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi
Narayana v. State of Telangana appropriately
encapsulates this essence as under:
"25. A mere reference to the names of family
members in a criminal case arising out of a
matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations
indicating their active involvement should be nipped
in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of
judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to
implicate all the members of the husband's family
19
when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial
discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations
unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised
allegations cannot form the basis for criminal
prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such
cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the
legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of
innocent family members. In the present case,
appellant Nos. 2 to 6, who are the members of the
family of appellant No. 1 have been living in different
cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house
of appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 herein.
Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal
prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the
process of the law in the absence of specific
allegations made against each of them."
14. The term "cruelty" is subject to rather cruel
misuse by the parties, and cannot be established
simpliciter without specific instances, to say the least.
The tendency of roping these sections, without
mentioning any specific dates, time or incident, weakens
the case of the prosecutions, and casts serious suspicion
on the viability of the version of a Complainant. We
cannot ignore the missing specifics in a criminal
complaint, which is the premise of invoking criminal
machinery of the State. Be that as it may, we are informed
that the marriage of the Appellant has already been dissolved
and the divorce decree has attained finality, hence any further
prosecution of the Appellant will only tantamount to an abuse of
process of law."
13.2. The Apex Court in GHANSHYAM SONI v. STATE
(GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI)2 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
10. A perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made
by the complainant are that in the year 1999, the Appellant
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301
20
inflicted mental and physical cruelty upon her for bringing
insufficient dowry. The Complainant refers to few instances of
such atrocities, however the allegations are generic, and rather
ambiguous. The allegations against the family members, who
have been unfortunately roped in, is that they used to instigate
the Appellant husband to harass the Complainant wife, and
taunted the Complainant for not bringing enough dowry;
however, there is no specific incident of harassment or any
evidence to that effect. Similarly, the allegations against the five
out of six sisters that they used to insult the Complainant and
demanded dowry articles from her, and upon failure beat her
up, but there is not even a cursory mention of the incident. An
allegation has also been made against a tailor named Bhagwat
that he being a friend of the Appellant instigated him against
the Complainant, and was allegedly instrumental in blowing his
greed. Such allegations are merely accusatory and contentious
in nature, and do not elaborate a concrete picture of what may
have transpired. For this reason alone, and that the evidence on
record is clearly inconsistent with the accusations, the version of
the Complainant seems implausible and unreliable. The following
observation in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana Represented
by Its Secretary, Department of Home, fits perfectly to the
present scenario:
"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding
against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to
matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of
the husband should not be roped in on the basis of
omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their
involvement in the crime are made out."
11. As regards the Appellant, the purportedly specific
allegations levelled against him are also obscure in nature. Even
if the allegations and the case of the prosecution is taken at its
face value, apart from the bald allegations without any specifics
of time, date or place, there is no incriminating material found
by the prosecution or rather produced by the complainant to
substantiate the ingredients of "cruelty" under section 498A IPC,
as recently observed in the case of JaydedeepsinhPravinsinh
Chavda v. State of Gujarat3 and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of
Uttar Pradesh4. The Complainant has admittedly failed to
produce any medical records or injury reports, x-ray reports, or
any witnesses to substantiate her allegations. We cannot ignore
21
the fact that the Complainant even withdrew her second
Complaint dt. 06.12.1999 six days later on 12.12.1999. There is
also no evidence to substantiate the purported demand for
dowry allegedly made by the Appellant or his family and the
investigative agencies in their own prudence have not added
sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to the
chargesheet.
12. In this respect, the Sessions Court has applied
its judicial mind to the allegations in the FIR & the
material on record, and has rightly discharged the
Appellants of the offences under section 498A & 34 IPC.
Notwithstanding the said observation by the Sessions
Court that the possibility of false implication cannot be
ruled out, the discharge of the Appellant merely because
the Complainant is a police officer is erroneous and
reflects poorly on the judicial decision making, which
must be strictly based on application of judicial principles
to the merits of the case. On the other hand, the High
Court vide the Impugned Order has traversed one step
further and overtly emphasised that simply because the
Complainant is a police officer, it cannot be assumed that
she could not have been a victim of cruelty at the hands
of her husband and in-laws. We agree with the sensitive
approach adopted by the High Court in adjudicating the
present case, however a judicial decision cannot be
blurred to the actual facts and circumstances of a case. In
this debate, it is only reasonable to re-iterate that the
Sessions Court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction
and the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction
under section 482 CrPC, must delve into the material on
record to assess what the Complainant has alleged and
whether any offence is made out even if the allegations
are accepted in toto. In the present case, such scrutiny of
the allegations in the FIR and the material on record
reveals that no prima facie is made out against the
Appellant or his family. It is also borne from the record
that the divorce decree of their marriage, has already
been passed, and the same has never been challenged by
the Complainant wife, and hence has attained finality.
Upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and
that the alleged incidents pertain to the year 1999 and
since then the parties have moved on with their
22
respective lives, it would be unjust and unfair if the
Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a
trial.
13. It is rather unfortunate that the Complainant
being an officer of the State has initiated criminal
machinery in such a manner, where the aged parents-in-
law, five sisters and one tailor have been arrayed as an
accused. Notwithstanding the possibility of truth behind
the allegations of cruelty, this growing tendency to
misuse legal provisions has time and again been
condemned by this Court. The observations in Dara
Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, Preeti
Gupta v. State of Jharkhand aptly captures this concern."
13.3. 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
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2913
23
absence of any specific instance or occasion detailed with
particulars wherein the appellant(s) demanded dowry
from respondent No. 2 and on refusal of the same,
subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. The only
allegations levelled by respondent No. 2 against the
appellants herein are that subsequent to the birth of her
daughter, the conduct of her husband underwent a
change, which is stated to have been on account of the
alleged inducement exercised by the in-laws including
the appellant(s) herein for the purpose of demanding
additional dowry and that pursuant to the counselling
conducted at the Women Police Station, Nalgonda,
although the husband of respondent No. 2 and his family
assured that she would be treated properly, they
nevertheless continued to subject respondent No. 2 to
mental and physical cruelty.
15. We therefore find that the aforesaid allegations
levelled against the appellant(s), even if taken at their face
value, do not prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged
offences so as to warrant the initiation of criminal proceedings.
16. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for
the appellant(s) brought to our notice the judgment of this
Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of
Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 ("Dara Lakshmi Narayana") as
well as other judgments which squarely apply to this case. We
have perused the same.
17. This Court speaking through one of us (B.V.
Nagarathna, J.) in Dara Lakshmi Narayana, while dealing with
the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings instituted by the
respondent wife therein against her husband and in-laws who
were charged with offences punishable under Sections 498A of
the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961, held as
follows:
"27. A mere reference to the names of family
members in a criminal case arising out of a
matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations
indicating their active involvement should be nipped
in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of
judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to
24
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 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
25
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)
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."
26
13.4. Recently in DR. SUSHIL KUMAR PURBEY v. STATE
OF BIHAR4, the Apex Court has held as follows:
".... .... ....
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by
the parties and upon a careful perusal of the material on
record, we are of the view that the High Court fell into
error in restricting the quashing of criminal proceedings
only to the sister-in-law (Respondent 3). A comparative
reading of the FIR reveals that the allegations levelled
against the sister-in-law and those against the present
appellants are, in all material particulars, identical. The
FIR does not assign any specific or overt act to either
appellant; there are no particular dates, places, or
individual acts attributed to them. The lone allegation
that stands separately against the present appellants is
that they would quarrel. This, however, does not
constitute a criminal offence and cannot, by itself, sustain
cognizance of the offences under
Sections 341, 323, 498A & 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of
the Dowry Act for which the appellants have been
summoned. The standard applied by the High Court in
quashing proceedings against the sister-in-law, on the
ground that the allegations against her were general and
omnibus, applies with equal force to the present
appellants, and there is no principled basis for
distinguishing between them.
8. It is further pertinent to note that the marriage was
solemnised in July 2019, and the husband filed the divorce
petition as early as March 2021. The criminal complaint against
the appellants was, however, lodged only in March 2022, nearly
a year after the filing of the divorce petition. Though this delay,
standing alone, would not constitute a sufficient ground for
quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellants.
However, viewed in conjunction with the absence of any specific
allegations attributable to them, the delay lends credence to the
submission that the criminal complaint against the in-laws may
4
2026 SCC OnLine SC 338
27
have been instituted by way of a counter-blast to the divorce
proceedings initiated by the husband. When these two
considerations are read together, we are satisfied that the
continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present
appellants cannot be sustained.
9. Before moving forward, we consider it necessary to
clarify that the observations made hereinabove are confined to
the question of the maintainability of the criminal proceedings
against the present appellants, and must not be construed as an
expression of any opinion on the merits of the case as a whole.
The criminal proceedings against the husband shall continue in
accordance with law. We note, in this context, that the husband
did not seek quashing of the proceedings against him before the
High Court under Section 482 CrPC; it was only the present
appellants and the sister-in-law who did so. The husband is also
not before this Court in the present appeal. We therefore find no
occasion to comment upon the allegations levelled against him,
and the proceedings against him shall be governed by law.
10. In view of the foregoing, we are of the
considered opinion that the High Court erred in applying
different standards to persons who stand on an identical
footing insofar as the nature of the allegations against
them is concerned. Since the allegations against the
present appellants and the sister-in-law are, in
substance, the same, the reasoning that led the High
Court to quash the proceedings against the sister-in-law
ought equally to have led to the quashing of proceedings
against the present appellants. The impugned order, to
the extent that it declined to extend such relief to the
appellants, cannot be sustained."
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
The Apex Court in RAJESH CHADDHA v. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1094 observed that Section
498A is a cruel misuse against members of the family
28
without there being any rhyme or reason or maliciously
roped in by the complainant/wife against aged parents,
distant relatives, married sister living separate who are
being deliberately drawn as accused in matrimonial matters.
The growing tendency to append every relative of the
husband casts serious doubt on the veracity of the
allegation.
The Apex Court in GHANSHYAM SONI supra underscores the
imperative for the Courts to sift through allegations with
care and circumspection, particularly where aged relatives
are implicated on the basis of sweeping and unspecific
accusations. The Apex Court cautions against permitting
criminal law to be wielded as a weapon, to ensnare entire
families in the vortex of matrimonial discord.
Similarly, in SUSHIL KUMAR PURBEY supra the Apex court
reiterates that general allegations bereft of specific overt acts
cannot sustain criminal prosecution under Section 498A of the IPC.
Mere existence of quarrels or strained relations does not
29
ipso facto constitute cruelty within the meaning of the
provision.
14. Viewed through the prism of the afore-quoted judgments
of the Apex Court, the case at hand projects a classic illustration of
trivial discords amplified into criminal prosecution. To permit the
proceedings to continue against these petitioners, the mother-in-
law, the father-in-law and the sister-in-law would become an abuse
of the process of the law and subject them to the ordeal of
protracted trial without foundational basis, resulting in miscarriage
of justice.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Entire proceedings in C.C.No.23089 of 2021 pending
SPONSORED
before the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan
30
Magistrate, Bengaluru stands quashed insofar as
petitioners 1 to 3/accused 2 to 4 are concerned.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2024 also stand disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Bkp
CT:MJ
