IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.1000 of 2024 Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 _______________________________________________________ Ravi Kumar & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …..Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. For the Petitioners: Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1- State. Mr. Mohit Jaitak & Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocates, for respondent No.2. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of the instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners-accused (in short ‘accused’) for quashing of FIR No.178 of 2023 dated 28.06.2023, registered under Sections 498- A, 406, 404, 506 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, as well as consequent proceedings i.e. Police Challan No.337/2023, pending adjudication before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, Himachal Pradesh. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Quint-essential facts, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced from the record by respective parties, are that the FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No. 2, Ms. Anjana Bala (in short "complainant"), who alleged that her marriage was solemnized with accused No. 1, Ravi Kumar on 03.01.2016, as per Hindu rites and customs and thereafter, both cohabited together in shared household at Village Badehra and out of their wedlock, no child was born. Complainant alleged that her parents had spent approximately Rs.10,00,000/- on celebration of her marriage and they also gave sufficient dowry articles and gifts as demanded by the accused named in the FIR. Complainant alleged that since accused had knowledge that she was working, accused No. 1 started checking her mobile to ascertain details of her salary and savings. She alleged that when accused started demanding money from her, she refused to give by stating that she doesn't have sufficient money with her as she had already spent huge amount on solemnization of her marriage. She alleged that on afore account, accused started maltreating her and they repeatedly compelled her to bring all house daily products and pay them Rs.15,000/- monthly. She alleged that when she refused to comply with the aforesaid demands of the accused, they started harassing her on one pretext or other by using filthy and foul language. She alleged that in the month of September 3 2022, she requested her husband, i.e. accused No. 1 to give her some amount for household expenses, to which he agreed, but she was astonished, when she received notice from Court of the Additional Principal Judge (II), Family Court, Una, Himachal Pradesh, with regard to petition filed by her husband under Section 13-1 (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on false and manipulated facts. She alleged that when she asked the accused about filing of false and baseless divorce petition, they turned deaf ears and did not care, and as such, she was compelled to disclose each and everything to her parents telephonically, who immediately reached her matrimonial house to inquire reason for filing divorce petition. She alleged that accused became hyper and started levelling baseless allegations on her, without any rhyme and reasons and started demanding the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from her as well as her parents. She alleged that accused also started threatening her that they would forcibly dispossess her from shared household consisting of three rooms kitchen, latrine, and bathroom at Village Badehra, Tehsil Haroli, District Una and when she requested them not to commit such acts, the accused threatened her with dire consequences and also abused her. She alleged that accused have not only caused harassment, mental agony, stress and humiliation, but have also caused mental cruelty to her, and as such, she approached SHO, Police Station Sadar, Una, but since no action was taken, she was compelled to file 4 complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Una, but since aforesaid authority also failed to take any action, she was constrained to institute complaint Section 156(3) Cr.P.C in the competent Court of Law, which, after having examined complaint as well as report submitted by the Police, ordered registration of FIR, which is being sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings. 3. 3. Though after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, accused have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law on the ground that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, is a sheer abuse of process of law because no case much less under Sections 498-A, 406, 404, 506 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused. 4. Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the accused, vehemently argued that bare perusal of allegations in the FIR itself suggests that false story has been concocted by the complainant to harass the accused. He stated that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, filed at the behest of the complaint, is nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition filed by accused No. 1. He alleged that allegation of demanding dowry, if any, in the shape of Rs.2,00,000/- came to be levelled against the accused after institution 5 of divorce petition by accused No. 1 in the competent Court of Law. Mr. Thakur further submitted that though there is nothing to suggest that accused ever compelled the complainant to spend money on household things, but even if such allegation is presumed to be correct, such act, if any, of the complainant cannot be construed to be demand of dowry, which is punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that ill-intention of the complainant to harass the accused can be gathered from the ominous allegation of harassment levelled against the each and every member of the family. He alleged that complainant has neither provided any specific details nor described any particular instance of harassment, rather she has failed to mention the time, date, place or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred or the nature, particulars, or details of the alleged demand. He further submitted that mere allegation that the accused mentally harassed the complainant in respect to the demand for dowry does not fulfill the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, especially in the absence of any cogent material or evidence on record to substantiate the allegation. He further submitted there is no mention of specific incident, on which date accused allegedly assaulted the complainant, subjected her to mental cruelty, or committed any act constituting cruelty as per Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code to the complainant, rather FIR has been filed solely to wreak vengeance against accused 6 No. 1, who otherwise, being dissatisfied with conduct of the complainant, chose to file divorce petition in the competent Court of Law. Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the accused further argued that since for the submissions made hereinabove, case of prosecution initiated pursuant to lodging of FIR sought to be quashed is bound to fail in all probabilities, no fruitful purpose would be served in case prosecution against the accused is permitted to continue. 5. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent-State, and Mr. Abhishek Nagta, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, while refuting the aforesaid contentions raised at the behest of learned counsel representing the accused, vehemently argued that present petition is not maintainable for the reason that FIR sought to be quashed has culminated into charge sheet. They further argued that bare perusal of allegations contained in FIR itself suggest that from day one of her marriage, complainant was put to undue harassment and maltreatment for her bringing less dowry. They further submitted that complainant has specifically alleged that repeatedly she was asked for some amount by her husband as well as other family members for household needs, which can also be termed as dowry. They further argued that complainant has specifically alleged that sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was demanded by her in-laws after filing of divorce petition, which act itself suggests demand of dowry. Learned counsel 7 representing respondents further argued that since complainant was constantly harassed, tortured and put to mental agony for bringing less dowry and illegal demands for money were being made, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Police by registering case under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code against the accused named in FIR. They submitted that otherwise also, cruelty, if any, meted to the complainant can be proved by leading cogent and convincing evidence, which can also be led in case trial is permitted to continue and any order passed by this Court, thereby accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused would preempt the trial court from conducting trial, which otherwise is very essential in the case at hand to ascertain the correctness in the allegation levelled by the complainant in the FIR sought to be quashed. 6. I have heard learned counsel of the parties and gone through the record carefully. 7. Before ascertaining the genuineness and correctness of the submissions and counter-submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the parties vis-à-vis prayer made in the instant petition, this Court deems it necessary to discuss/elaborate upon the scope and competence of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings, while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.PC (now 528 of BNSS). 8 8. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, 1977 (2) SCC 699, held that High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC is entitled to quash the proceedings, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. 9. Subsequently, in case titled State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while elaborately discussing the scope and competence of High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC laid down certain principles governing the jurisdiction of High Court to exercise its power. After passing of aforesaid judgment, issue with regard to exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.PC, again came to be considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case bearing Criminal Appeal No.577 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (CrL.) No. 287 of 2017) titled Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., wherein it has been held that saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose i.e. court proceedings ought not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. 9 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, relying upon its earlier judgment titled as Rajiv Thapar and Ors v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, reiterated that High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC., to quash the proceedings against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charge, but such power must always be used with caution, care and circumspection. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court concluded that while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, Court exercising such power must be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts and the material adduced on record itself overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. Besides above, the Hon’ble Apex Court further held that material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. In the aforesaid judgment titled as 10 Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “22. The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminal proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) has been dealt with by this Court in Rajiv Thapar & Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor wherein this Court inter alia held as under: (2013) 3 SCC 330, paras 29-30) 29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the 11 prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- 30.1 Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2 Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. 30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 12 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 11. It is quite apparent from the bare perusal of aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time that 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/her due to private and personal grudge, High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC can proceed to quash the proceedings. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case tilted Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Anr, AIR 2019 SC 210, has held that abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation and as such, the abuse of law or miscarriage of justice can be rectified by the court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC. The relevant paras of the judgment are as under: 16. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 Cr. P.C and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order 13 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Section 482 of Cr.P.C reads as follows:- “482. Saving of inherent power of the High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 17. There is nothing in the words of this Section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court ( G. Sagar Suri and Anr. V. State of U.P. and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 636 (para 7), Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (2013) 10 SCC 591 (para 20). Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the allegations have materialized into a charge sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.” 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr, (2019) 9 SCC 608, has elaborated the scope of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.PC, the relevant para whereof reads as under:- “7. Section 482 is an overriding section which saves the inherent powers of the court to advance the cause of justice. Under Section 482 the inherent jurisdiction of the court can be exercised (i) to give effect to an order under the CrPC; (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of the court; and (iii) to 14 otherwise secure the ends of justice. The powers of the court under Section 482 are wide and the court is vested with a significant amount of discretion to decide whether or not to exercise them. The court should be guarded in the use of its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash an FIR or criminal proceeding as it denies the prosecution the opportunity to establish its case through investigation and evidence. These principles have been consistently followed and re-iterated by this Court. In Inder Mohan Goswami v State of Uttaranchal, this Court observed. “23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts’ powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 24. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute.” 8. Given the varied nature of cases that come before the High Courts, any strict test as to when the court’s extraordinary powers can be exercised is likely to tie the court’s hands in the face of future injustices. This Court in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal conducted a detailed study of the situations where the court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and laid down a list of illustrative examples of where quashing may be appropriate. It is 15 not necessary to discuss all the examples, but a few bear relevance to the present case. The court in Bhajan Lal noted that quashing may be appropriate where, (2007) 12 SCC 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 “102. (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 a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2). …….… (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.” In deciding whether to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482, the Court does not adjudicate upon the veracity of the facts alleged or enter into an appreciation of competing evidence presented. The limited question is whether on the face of the FIR, the allegations constitute a cognizable offence. As this Court noted in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine SC3100 (“Dhruvaram Sonar”): “13. It is clear that for quashing proceedings, meticulous analysis of factum of taking cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate is not called for. Appreciation of evidence is also not permissible in exercise of inherent powers. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken, it is 16 open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of its inherent powers.” 14. Aforesaid law, clearly stipulates that court can exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash criminal proceedings, in cases, 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. 15. Now being guided by the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court would make an endeavor to examine and consider the prayer made in the instant petition vis-à- vis factual matrix of the case. 16. Since facts, which may be relevant for adjudication of case at hand, as emerged from the FIR sought to be quashed have been already taken note of in the earlier part of the judgment, this Court sees no necessity to take note of the same again for the sake of brevity. It is not in dispute that marriage inter se accused No. 1, Ravi Kumar and the complainant was solemnized on 03.11.2016 and thereafter, FIR, which is subject matter of the present case, came to be lodged by the complainant in year 2023 i.e. after 7 years of marriage. There is nothing in the FIR, suggestive of the fact that prior to lodging of FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, complaint of any kind ever came to be made to the police or Gram Panchayat at the behest of the complainant, alleging therein her 17 torture, harassment at the hands of accused for her bringing less dowry. Moreover, this Court, after having carefully perused each and every allegation contained in FIR sought to be quashed, finds that direct allegation of demanding dowry in the shape of money of Rs.2,00,000/- came to be made by the accused in the year 2023 that too after filing of divorce petition by her husband. As per own case of the complainant, the alleged demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-, was made by the accused in the year 2023, when the complainant was confronted with the fact that the accused No.1 had filed a divorce petition before the Court of the learned Additional Principal Judge (II), Family Court, Una, Himachal Pradesh. Allegedly when parents of the complainant attempted to pacify the accused or made an attempt to ascertain the reason for filing divorce petition, allegedly accused named in the FIR demanded sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Since there is nothing in the FIR to demonstrate that prior to year 2023, demand, if any, of such huge amount was ever made, coupled with the fact that no complaint in that regard was ever lodged with the police or Gram Panchayat of the village concerned, this Court finds sufficient force in the argument raised by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the accused, that FIR sought to be quashed is nothing but counterblast to the divorce petition filed at the behest of accused No.1. 17. Though, at this stage, Mr. Abhishek Nagta, learned counsel for the complainant, invited the attention of this Court to the 18 FIR to demonstrate that, even prior to the alleged demand of ₹2,00,000/- made in the year 2023, the accused had been making similar demands, but this Court is not persuaded to accept the aforesaid submission for the reason that there is nothing in the FIR to suggest that the accused had ever demanded money by way of dowry, rather, as per the own case of the complainant, after discovering that she was earning a monthly salary, the accused repeatedly compelled her to incur expenses towards household articles. Such allegation, even if assumed to be true, cannot, by itself, be construed as a demand for dowry. Admittedly, prior to lodging FIR sought to be quashed, complainant remained in the company of the accused for more than 6 and a half years and during this period, neither she complained to the police, nor to her parents with regard to her harassment on account of bringing less dowry or illegal demand of dowry, if any, made by the accused. 18. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that allegations made by the complainant are vague. She, besides implicating her husband, has also attempted to implicate the entire family, against whom otherwise allegations of demanding dowry or money are totally missing. While alleging demand of dowry, complainant has neither furnished any specific particulars nor described any particular instance of harassment. She failed to mention the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged acts of harassment were committed. 19 Otherwise also, she has not disclosed the nature of the alleged demand, its particulars, or the circumstances in which such demand was allegedly made. At this stage, this Court finds it necessary to take note of Section 498A, which reads as under: “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—(a)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or 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. As per aforesaid provision of law, 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. However, for the purpose of this section, “cruelty’ would mean any willful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or to danger to life, limb or health of the woman or harassment of woman where such harassment is with a view to 20 coerce her or any person related to her, to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. Merely stating that accused mentally harassed the complainant with respect to demand of dowry does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 498A Indian Penal Code, especially in the absence of any cogent material evidence on record to substantiate the said allegation. The term "cruelty" cannot be established without specific instances. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment passed by the Honorable Apex Court in case titled Shobhit Kumar Mittal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 945. Relevant paras of the afore judgment are extracted hereinbelow: - “16. Further, Section 3 of the Dowry Act deals with the penalty for giving or taking dowry. It states that any person who gives, takes, or abets the giving or taking of dowry shall face a punishment of imprisonment for a minimum term of five years and a fine not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the dowry, whichever is greater. Section 4 of the Dowry Act talks about the 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, as the case may be, shall be punished 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. 17. The issue for consideration is whether, given the facts and circumstances of the present case and after examining the FIR, the High Court was right in refusing to quash the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.347 of 2023 dated 21 09.11.2023 under Section 323 and 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act, as against the appellant herein. 18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by 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 for dowry, the complainant/respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred or the details of the nature of demand or its particulars. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. Furthermore, the complainant/respondent No.2 has failed to impress the Court as to how the alleged harassment has any proximate relationship to the said injury and nerve damage that she sustained, so as to punish her in- laws under Section 323 IPC. There is 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 hurt as defined under Section 319 IPC. Furthermore, merely stating that the accused/appellant has mentally harassed the complainant/respondent No.2 with respect to a demand for dowry does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 498A of IPC specially in 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 the aforesaid provisions, without mentioning any specific detail, weakens the case of the prosecution and casts serious aspersions on the probability of the version of the complainant. Therefore, this Court cannot ignore the missing specifics in the FIR which is the basic premise for invoking the criminal machinery of the 22 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 initiate criminal proceedings against them. Therefore, mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specific details would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings against any person. 19. Courts have to be careful and cautious in dealing with complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial disputes where the allegations have to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law. 20. In this regard, it would be apposite to rely on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335 (“Bhajan Lal”) with particular reference to paragraph 102 therein, wherein this Court observed as hereunder: “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 give 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 23 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 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 24 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.” 21. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial tests, 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 are vague and general in nature and therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal squarely applies to the facts of this case. It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution emanating from the FIR to continue.” 20. In afore judgment, Honorable Apex Court has categorically held that mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specific details would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings against any person, rather, courts need to be more careful and cautious in dealing with complaints and must take pragmatic realities into perspective, while dealing with matrimonial disputes. 25 21. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by the Honorable Apex Court in case titled as Sanjay D. Jain & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw SC 960, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court, while placing reliance on its earlier judgment in Digambar and Another V. The State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 INSC 1019, held that if the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even when taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused, quashing of the proceedings would be justified. In afore case, Hon’ble Apex Court held that as regards the ingredients for making out an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the India Penal Code is concerned, the requirement is that there has to be cruelty inflicted against the victim which either drives her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Relevant paras of the afore judgment are extracted hereinbelow: - “9. Before examining the FIR along with the complaint of the complainant, we may refer to the parameters that are to be borne in mind while entertaining the prayer for quashing of the FIR. If the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even when taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused, quashing of the proceedings would be justified. Vague and general allegations cannot lead to forming of a prima facie case. As regards the ingredients for making out an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code is concerned, the requirement is that there has to 26 be cruelty inflicted against the victim which either drives her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. The latter part of the provision refers to harassment with a view to satisfy an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security raised by the husband or his relatives. These aspects have been considered in detail in a recent decision in Digambar (supra) (to which one of us, B.R. Gavai, J, as he then was, was a party). 10. A perusal of the FIR and its consideration in entirety indicates that statements of a general nature have been made therein as against the present appellants. The complainant states that on 07.08.2021 when she had gone to her parental house, she had received a call from her mother-in-law raising a demand for clothes and jewellery. When she returned to her matrimonial house on 30.08.2021, she had taken few clothes for the family members. Except this statement, all other statements are of a general nature as well as vague without any particulars. There are other omnibus statements made in the complaint without any particulars whatsoever. It is also to be noted that for the purpose of constituting an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, cruelty as indicated in the Explanation to the said provision must be stated to be inflicted. The cruelty caused by the husband and his family members should be of such nature that it is inflicted with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself. Such allegations are absent in the present case. We do not find that on a complete reading of the complaint, a prima facie case for proceeding under Section 498- A of the Penal Code has been made out against the appellants. 27 11. As regards the offence punishable under Sections 377 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code is concerned, it is seen that the allegations in this regard have been made only against the complainant’s husband and not against the present appellants. The entire tenor of the complaint in that regard seeks to implicate the complainant’s husband and all incidents stated therein relate to him. There is no allegation whatsoever in that context against the appellants that would require them to face trial on that count. The proceedings insofar as the present appellants are concerned, thus, deserve to be quashed in their entirety. In our view, the High Court failed to notice this aspect of the matter while declining to quash the proceedings against the appellants. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we are satisfied that on the touchstone of the law laid down in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1990 INSC 363, a case has been made out by the appellants for quashing of the criminal proceedings lodged against them under Sections 498-A, 377 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Continuation of these proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and, hence, the appellants are entitled to relief. 22. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 343. In afore case, Hon’ble Apex Court, while specifically dealing with case registered under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, observed that if a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of 28 the process of the court. Relevant paras of the afore judgment are extracted hereinbelow: - “25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute. 26. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2010 Criminal Law Journal 4303 (1), this Court observed the following: - “28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. 29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 which reads as under: “498-A. 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. 29 Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, ‘cruelty’ means: (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a natureas 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 suchharassment 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.” 30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC 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. 31. The learned members of the Bar have enormoussocial 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 498-A as 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 30 discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 32. 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. 23. Most importantly, in afore case Hon’ble Apex Court held that category (7) referred to in Bhajan Lal’ supra should be taken into consideration, while applying in cases like on the one hand, a bit liberally. It was observed that where the Court is satisfied that the implication of the husband and his close relatives is actuated by an oblique motive, then, notwithstanding the fact that the FIR and the charge-sheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court, in order to do substantial justice, should read between the lines, discern the complainant's oblique motive, and adopt a pragmatic approach while considering the matter. 24. Reliance is also placed upon another judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.V. Krishnabhat & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 149. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Apex Court, after having found that the allegations against the father-in-law or mother-in-law lacked specificity, and there were no concrete details of dowry demands or acts of cruelty 31 attributed to them, proceeded to quash the FIR. Most importantly, in the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that criminal law should not be used as a tool for harassment or vendetta, rather, allegations in a criminal complaint must be scrutinized with care to ensure that they disclose a prima facie case before subjecting individuals to the rigors of a criminal trial. Relevant paras of the afore judgment are extracted hereinbelow:- “13. After a thorough consideration of the submissions and the materials placed on record, we find that the allegations against the father-in-law and mother-inlaw are indeed general and lacked specificity. The complainant has not provided any concrete details of dowry demands or acts of cruelty attributable to them. The admitted fact of their separate residence further weakens the complainant's case against them. In the absence of prima facie evidence to establish their involvement in the alleged offenses, the proceedings against the father-in-law and mother-in-law cannot be sustained. 14. Regarding the husband, it is evident that the allegations against him are similarly vague and unsubstantiated. The complainant has made generalized accusations without furnishing specific instances of misconduct. No specific allegations and neither any material have come on record to show a prima facie commission of the alleged offences of cruelty and dowry demand. The couple had a love marriage and experienced a blissful relationship during the initial years of their marriage, as is admitted on record. This, coupled with the lack of material evidence to support the allegations, leads to the conclusion that no prima facie case of cruelty or dowry demand is made out against the husband as well. Criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue in the absence of 32 sufficient evidence to prima facie establish the commission of an offense. 15. Further, as is evident from the record, the marriage between the parties has been dissolved, with categorical findings regarding cruelty meted out by the complainant against the appellant-husband. The allegations made in the criminal complaint, regarding dowry demand, cruelty, and harassment have all been held to be baseless, false and frivolous. Though, these are separate proceedings, but findings regarding the truth and veracity of such serious allegations, as have been made by the complainant herein, become relevant in order to do justice and avoid misuse of criminal justice system. The Family Court has made categorical findings to hold that the allegations are false and nothing has been produced to or prove any merit in the allegations. Even in the criminal proceedings impugned before us, nothing has come on record to show commission of these alleged acts, even on a prima facie analysis. Once it has been held that there is no merit or truthfulness to the allegations made, then criminal proceedings on the very same allegations cannot be allowed to continue and propagate misuse of the criminal justice system. 16. Criminal law should not be used as a tool for harassment or vendetta. The allegations in a criminal complaint must be scrutinized with care to ensure that they disclose a prima facie case before subjecting individuals to the rigors of a criminal trial. The cases involving allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC and the DP Act often require a careful and cautious approach to prevent misuse of the law. While the provisions are intended to protect women from cruelty and dowry harassment, they should not be used to settle personal scores or pursue ulterior motives.” 33 25. Having carefully perused allegations levelled in the FIR sought to be quashed vis-à-vis the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments discussed hereinabove, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel representing the accused, that the FIR lodged at the behest of the complainant, if permitted to sustain, would amount to a sheer abuse of the process of law. The complainant, after having lived for more than six and a half years, with the husband and his family, chose to lodge an FIR that too, after the initiation of divorce proceedings at the instance of her husband (accused No. 1). Prior to lodging the FIR, the complainant had neither filed any complaint alleging that she had been subjected to domestic violence by the accused nor lodged any complaint with the police or informed her parents regarding any alleged unlawful demand of dowry made by the accused named in the FIR. Moreover, the specific allegation of a demand of dowry in the shape of Rs,2,00,000/- allegedly made by the accused in the year 2023 came to levelled after receipt of the notice in the divorce petition, which act of the complainant certainly compels this Court to agree with the submission made at the behest of the accused that the FIR sought to be quashed is nothing but a counter-blast to the divorce petition. There are no specific details or particular instances of harassment, if any, meted out to the complainant at the hands of the accused named in the FIR, rather, the allegations made by the 34 complainant are vague and omnibus, which can be construed to be manifestly attended with mala fides and leveled to wreak vengeance. 26. Having scanned the entire material adduced on record, vis-à-vis prayer made in the instant petition, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned Counsel for the accused that this Court, while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may proceed to quash the FIR/challan submitted against the accused, because continuance thereof would be sheer abuse of process of law, since, for the reasons stated herein above, case of prosecution is bound to fail against the accused in all probabilities. Otherwise also, in case prayer made on behalf of the accused is not accepted, they would be subjected to unnecessary ordeal of facing protracted trial, which otherwise is bound to fail. 27. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above and law taken into consideration, present petition is allowed. FIR No.178 of 2023 dated 28.06.2023, registered under Sections 498- A, 406, 404, 506 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, as well as consequent proceedings, are quashed and set aside. The petitioners are discharged henceforth. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 23, 2026 (sunil)