- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 315 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. VINAY P S/O BASAVANTHAIAH S AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.48 1ST MAIN, 1ST STAGE KANDAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE SRIRAMPURA KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSURU 570023 NAME AS PER AADHAR VINAY P B S/O BASAVANTHAIAH S. 2. BASAVANTHAIAH S/O SHIVALINGAIAH POOJARI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.48 1ST MAIN, 1ST STAGE KANDAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE SRIRAMPURA, KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSURU 570023 NAME AS PER AADHAR BASAVANTAYYA S PUJARI S/O SHIVALUNGAYYA PUJARI. 3. RATHNAMMA W/O BASAVANTHAIAH R/AT NO.48 1ST MAIN, 1ST STAGE Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 KANDAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE SRIRAMPURA, KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSURU - 570 023. NAME AS PER AADHAR S M RATHNAMMA W/O BASAVANATHAYYA ADDRESS PETITONER NO.1 TO AS PER ADHAR NO.48 1ST MAIN,1ST STAGE KANDAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE SRIRAMPURA KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSURU - 570 023. 4. SRIVIDYA W/O PRAVEEN KUAMR M P AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.48 1ST MAIN 1ST STAGE KANDAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE SIRAMPURA KUVEMPUNGARA MYSURU 570 023. AS PER AADHAR SRIVIDYA P B W/O PRAVEEN KUAMR M P R/AT NO.32/1 3RD A CROSS OPP. MURALIKRISHNA SCHOOL GOWDANAPALYA SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD BANGALROE SOUTH - 560 061. 5. PRAVEEN S/O K S PRAKASH AGED AOBUT 40 YEARS R/AT 2ND STAGE, SRIRMPURA MYSORE DISTRICT 570 023 AS PER AADHAR M P PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O K S PARAKASH NO.70 NEW NO.40, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH A CROSS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 HANUMAGIRI NAGAR , CHIKKSANDRA BANGALORE SOUTH - 560 061. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K C.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY MYSURU CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION MYSORE DISTRICT REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-01. 2. MALLAVVA VINAYA P W/O VINAYA P AGED AOBUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.48 1ST MAIN, 1ST STAGE KANDAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE SRIRAMPURA, KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSURU - 570 023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. ROHAN S., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.107/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 85, 351(3), 352, 3(5) OF BNS AND SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961 BY MYSURU CITY WOMEN POLICE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 7TH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Div) AND JMFC COURT, MYSURU. THIS PETITION IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10.07.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CAV ORDER In this petition, petitioners seek quashing of the impugned FIR in Crime No. 107/24 registered by the 1st respondent - Mysuru City Women Police for offences punishable under Sections 85, 351(3), 352 r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the D.P.Act and for other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for 1st respondent as well as learned counsel for 2nd respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 2nd respondent- de facto complainant is the wife of 1st petitioner and their marriage having been solemnized on 14.02.2019, a female child was born out of their wedlock. Petitioner Nos..2 & 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1, while petitioner No.4 is his sister and petitioner No.5 is the husband of petitioner No.4. 4. Petitioner No.1 instituted matrimonial proceedings in M.C.No. 497/2024 against the 2nd respondent seeking for divorce - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 on the grounds of cruelty, desertion, etc., and the same is pending adjudication. Subsequently, on 24.07.2024, 2nd respondent instituted Domestic Violence proceedings against the petitioners herein in Crl.Misc.No.1473/24 under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed one more petition on 14.10.2024 against petitioner No.1 under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 125 Cr.P.C) in Crl.Misc. No.848/2024 and both the aforesaid proceedings filed by the 2nd respondent are being contested by the petitioners and pending adjudication before the respective courts. 5. Subsequently, on 22.10.2024, the 2nd respondent filed the impugned complaint registered as an FIR in Crime No.107/2024 against the petitioners - accused Nos. 1 to 5 for offences punishable under Sections 85, 351(3), 352 r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The 2nd respondent has also filed an application dated 17.12.2024 in the aforesaid M.C.No.497/2024 seeking interim maintenance against the petitioner No.1, which is also pending adjudication. 6. The aforesaid undisputed facts and circumstances clearly establish that in the light of earlier matrimonial proceedings in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 M.C.No.497/2024, domestic violence proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.1473/2024 and maintenance proceedings in Crl.Misc. No.848/2024, the subsequent impugned complaint and FIR are clearly an attempt to convert an essentially, predominantly and overwhelmingly matrimonial dispute between 2nd respondent and petitioner No.1 into the impugned criminal proceedings by giving the same into criminal flavor/ texture/ color which is clearly impressible in law. It is also pertinent to note that the 2nd respondent had left the matrimonial home and was residing with her parents, much prior to the institution of M.C.No.497/2024 by the petitioner No.1, in which proceedings as well as in the Domestic Violence and maintenance proceedings, the allegations made in the impugned complaint are conspicuously absent, thereby indicating that the impugned complaint and FIR is an afterthought and filed with an intention of harassing and intimidating the petitioners and in order to arm twist them. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the 2nd respondent lodged the impugned complaint after institution of M.C.No.497/2024 by petitioner No.1 and subsequent to domestic violence and maintenance proceedings supra, is sufficient to show that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 impugned complaint is nothing but a counterblast to the aforesaid proceedings pending between the parties. In addition thereto, a perusal of the impugned complaint will indicate that except making vague, omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners, specific instances and material particulars/details are neither made out nor disclosed or forthcoming in the impugned complaint so as to incriminate the petitioners for the offences alleged against them. It is therefore clear that the impugned complaint and FIR are nothing but an abuse of process of law warranting interference in the present petition. 8. Under identical circumstances, in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana - (2025) 3 SCC 735, the Apex Court held as under:- 7. Further, Section 3 of the Dowry Act deals with penalty for giving or taking dowry. It states that any person who engages in giving, taking, or abetting the exchange of dowry, shall face a punishment of imprisonment for a minimum of five years and a fine of not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the dowry, whichever is greater. 18. Section 4 of the Dowry Act talks of penalty for demanding dowry. It states that any person demanding dowry directly or indirectly, from the parents or other - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 relatives or guardians of a bride or bridegroom shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. 19. The issue for consideration is whether, given the facts and circumstances of the case and after examining the FIR, the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings against the appellants arising out of FIR No. 82 of 2022 dated 1-2- 2022 under Section 498-AIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act. 20. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by Respondent 2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that Appellant 1 harassed her and that Appellants 2 to 6 instigated him to do so, Respondent 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. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. 21. Further, the record reveals that Respondent 2 on 3-10-2021 left the matrimonial house leading Appellant 1 to file a police complaint on 5-10-2021. When the police officials traced her, Respondent 2 addressed a letter dated 11-11-2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting to close the complaint made by Appellant 1. In the said letter, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 Respondent 2 admitted that she left her matrimonial house after quarrelling with Appellant 1 as she was talking to a person by name Govindan over the phone for the past ten days continuously. She further admitted that Appellant 1 was taking good care of her. She also stated that she will not engage in such actions in future. Despite that, in 2021 itself, Respondent 2 once again left the matrimonial house leaving Appellant 1 and also her minor children. 22. Losing hope in the marriage, Appellant 1 issued a legal notice to Respondent 1 seeking divorce by mutual consent on 13-12-2021. Instead of responding to the said legal notice issued by Appellant 1, Respondent 2 lodged the present FIR No. 82 of 2022 on 1-2-2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda under Section 498-AIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act. 23. Given the facts of this case and in view of the timing and context of the FIR, we find that Respondent 2 left the matrimonial house on 3-10-2021 after quarrelling with Appellant 1 with respect to her interactions with a third person in their marriage. Later she came back to her matrimonial house assuring to have a cordial relationship with Appellant 1. However, she again left the matrimonial house. When Appellant 1 issued a legal notice seeking divorce on 13-12-2021, the present FIR came to be lodged on 1-2-2022 by Respondent 2. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the FIR filed by Respondent 2 is not a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with Appellant 1 and his family members. 24. The learned counsel for Respondent 1 State contended that a prima facie case was made out against the appellants for harassing Respondent 2 and demanding dowry from her. However, we observe that the allegations made by Respondent 2 in the FIR seem to be motivated by a desire for retribution rather than a legitimate grievance. Further, the allegations attributed against the appellants herein are vague and omnibus. 25. Respondent 2 has not contested the present case either before the High Court or this Court. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Respondent 2 has not only deserted Appellant 1 but has also abandoned her two children as well, who are now in the care and custody of Appellant 1. The counsel for the appellants has specifically submitted that Respondent 2 has shown no inclination to re-establish any relationship with her children. 26. Insofar as Appellants 2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against Appellants 2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate Appellant 1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 couple, namely, Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 and their children. Appellants 2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellants 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur, respectively. 27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 28. In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant and his wife i.e. the second respondent herein resided at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where he was working in Southern - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 Railways. They were married in the year 2015 and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the second respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore, it cannot be believed that there was any harassment for dowry during the said period or that there was any matrimonial discord. Further, the second respondent in response to the missing complaint filed by the first appellant herein on 5-10-2021 addressed a letter dated 11-11-2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting for closure of the said complaint as she had stated that she had left the matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a quarrel with Appellant 1 because of one Govindan with whom the second respondent was in contact over telephone for a period of ten days. She had also admitted that she would not repeat such acts in future. In the above conspectus of facts, we find that the allegations of the second respondent against the appellants herein are too far- fetched and are not believable. 29. We find that the High Court noted that there were also allegations against Respondent 2 and matrimonial disputes are pending between the parties. Therefore, the High Court came to the conclusion that custodial interrogation of the appellants was not necessary and protected the personal liberty of the appellants directing the investigating officer not to arrest the appellants till the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet. Albeit the said findings and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 observations, the High Court ultimately refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellants. 30. The inclusion of Section 498-AIPC 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- AIPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. 31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498-AIPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 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-AIPC 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. 32. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] observed as follows : (SCC p. 698, para 12) “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.” 33. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 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. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 35. We, accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 16-2-2022 [Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 3561] in Criminal Petition No. 1479 of 2022 filed under Section 482CrPC. Criminal Petition No. 1479 of 2022 under Section 482CrPC shall accordingly stand allowed. FIR No. 82 of 2022 dated 1-2-2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda under Section 498- AIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act against Appellants 1 to 6, charge-sheet dated 3-6-2022 filed in the Court of 1st Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad and the trial pending in the Court of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri against the appellants herein shall accordingly stand quashed. 9. So also, in the case of Digambar v. State of Maharashtra - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836, the Apex Court held as under:- 29. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that when the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. Further, it has been held that where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose any offence and make out a case against the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 accused, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. 30. In the present case also, as discussed above, the facts when taken at face value, do not reveal any specific instance of cruelty committed by the appellants herein. In our view, only stating that cruelty has been committed by the appellants herein due to some reason, would not amount to the offence under Section 498- A of IPC being attracted. The next allegation regarding a specific incident relating to the miscarriage being caused by the appellants herein has also been discussed above. A bare perusal of the allegation and the analysis of the same when compared with the statement of the Doctor reveals that even if the allegations are accepted at the face value, it would not prima facie make out a case against the present appellants. 31. Furthermore, the complaint was lodged after the notice of Divorce was given by the complainant, wherein, there was not even a whisper of the allegation of the cruelty or the miscarriage caused by the appellants. The alleged incident took place in 2016, whereas the complaint was filed after the notice of Divorce was given by the complainant, i.e. in 2018. The latest alleged incident in the FIR is of the year 2016, wherein the most serious allegations under Sections 312 and 313 of the IPC is raised. The explanation for the delay in filing of the complaint given by the complainant is that she did not want to spoil the marital relations. However, she has herself stated that she began residing separately and had - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 moved out of the matrimonial house. Further, she had sent the notice of Divorce on 15th May 2018. This would certainly mean that she believed that the marriage had broken down without there being any hope of reconciliation. It is difficult to believe that despite the complainant taking such drastic steps, she did not file the present FIR for another six months after the notice of Divorce was sent. Moreover, the notice of Divorce was completely silent about the allegations raised in the FIR which was subsequently filed. The notice of Divorce on the other hand contained allegations relating to the demand of money and jewellery from the complainant by the son of the appellants. It also contained vague allegations of physical assault inflicted by the son of the appellants. No allegation of cruelty or the miscarriage allegedly caused by the appellants was raised. 32. These facts lead us to conclude that the proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive of pressurizing the son of the appellant herein to consent to the divorce according to the terms of the complainant and the proceedings were used as a weapon by the complainant in the personal discord between the couple. 33. It would again, be apposite to refer to the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra) wherein this Court has discussed the objective of Section 498-A of IPC and has also raised its concerns over the misuse of this Section in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed thus: “28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 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 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, 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 498A of the 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. 29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the 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.” - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 34. We therefore hold that the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the appellants would result in an abuse of process of law. 35. In the present case, the High Court has held that the allegations made by the complainant cannot be presumed to be false and whether they are believable or not will be examined by the Trial Court. We hold that this was an erroneous approach taken by the High Court as according to the principles laid down in the case of Bhajanlal (supra), the allegations levelled in the complaint should at the very least be given a prima facie consideration. 36. In the result, we find that, this was a fit case wherein the High Court should have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. 37. We are therefore inclined to allow the present appeal. 38. We accordingly pass the following order: (i) The appeal is allowed; (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 23rd January 2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in Criminal Application No. 859 of 2019 is quashed and set aside. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 10. In the case of Ghanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi) - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301, the Apex Court held as under:- 9. We have heard Learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material on record. 10. A perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the complainant are that in the year 1999, the Appellant 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 - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 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 Home2, 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 JaydedeepsinhPravinsinhChavda 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 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 - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 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 Cr.P.C, 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 - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 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 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 Jharkhandaptly captures this concern. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgments, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37986 CRL.P No. 315 of 2025 and consequently, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed. 12. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned complaint and FIR in Crime No. 107/24 registered by the 1st respondent – Police for offences punishable under Sections 85, 351(3), 352 r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the D.P.Act qua the petitioners are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.