2026:HHC:33156 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 505 of 2024 Reserved on: 15.07.2026 Date of Decision: 07.08.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 07.08.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Ms. Sheela Kapoor ……...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. __________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Thakur, Ms. Kanchan Singh and Ms. Ritika Jassal, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. Through instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner for quashing of FIR bearing No.36 of 2022 dated 17.11.2022, registered at Women Police Station, Solan, District Solan, under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (for 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2026:HHC:33156 -2- short, ‘IPC’), as well as consequent proceedings pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, District Solan, H.P. 2. For having bird's-eye view, quintessential facts as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by respective parties are that FIR sought to be quashed in instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2-Dr. Sukriti Kaushik (hereinafter, 'complainant'), who alleged that her marriage was solemnized with person namely Dr. Sunny Singh on 28.04.2021 as per Hindu rites and customs and thereafter she stayed with her husband in his grandmother's house for first three months. Thereafter, husband, who at relevant time was working in Medical College, Jalandhar, went to Jalandhar. Since complainant was doing government job at Baddi, District Solan, she had been also visiting Jalandhar from time to time, as a result thereof she exhausted all her leaves. Complainant, who is also Doctor by profession, alleged that after February 2022, behavior of her husband, namely Dr. Sunny Singh, abruptly changed towards her and he started behaving rudely. She alleged that she came to know that her husband was taking medicine, Methylphenidate, and as such, at first instance she thought that his behavior has become irritable because of medicine, but when she decided to visit Jalandhar to meet her husband, he started texting messages like "sayonara", "don't visit me", and he did not come to pick her. She also alleged that after her having reached Jalandhar, her husband took her cell phone and locked himself in room. She alleged that her husband started chatting on phone with her gym instructor on her 2026:HHC:33156 -3- behalf and he sent some text messages which seriously damaged her reputation as Doctor and as a wife. She alleged that her husband accused her of having an affair with gym instructor, who is much younger than her, almost of her brother's age. She alleged that while she was at Jalandhar, there was Holi festival and as such, she decided to stay there for more two days, but during afore period, her husband tortured her physically and mentally and abruptly left the home. Complainant, who was in extreme shock, came back to Chandigarh and chose to discuss behavior of her husband with his younger brother in hope to resolve the things. She alleged that after one week, her husband was not contactable and as such she called at his college office and found that he has gone to Canada. She alleged that though she contacted his mother-in-law and brother-in-law to confirm the news, but they did not disclose the whereabouts of her husband and as such, she disclosed entire incident to her parents, who further spoke to her father- in-law, who confirmed that Dr. Sunny Singh was with him in Canada and will return back to India in May. Complainant alleged that she was eagerly waiting for her husband to come back, but he did not come back and whenever she tried to contact him, he got furious and did not respond. She alleged that she was told by her father-in-law that her husband keeps on talking to his mother Lalita and his maternal aunt, present petitioner Ms. Sheela Kapoor, for hours. She alleged that her father-in-law also disclosed to her that her abnormal behavior towards her is on the direction of her mother- in-law, Lalita, and her sister Sheela Kapoor (petitioner). She alleged that 2026:HHC:33156 -4- since her husband was not coming back to India, she also decided to prepare for exam to settle in Canada and went to see grandmother and bua of her husband, who disclosed that Dr. Sunny Singh intends to leave his job at Jalandhar and has requested for experience certificate. She alleged that visit of her husband to Canada was pre-planned and she was kept in the dark. Complainant alleged that though she applied for extraordinary leave to fix issue with husband, but she was not granted permission, as a result thereof, complainant is fully dependent for her financial support of her parents at Solan. She alleged that father-in-law of the complainant and her mother-in- law are living separately in Canada. Father-in-law is supporting her and on the other hand, mother-in-law is torturing the complainant. She alleged that mother-in-law of complainant, Lalita, and her sister Sheela Kapoor (present petitioner) share a close bond and they both were dominating and had influence in the family decisions. Precisely, she alleged that both her mother- in-law, Lalita, and her sister, Sheela Kapoor, had been instigating her husband against her. She also alleged that if the complaint (Annexure P-1) on the basis of which FIR sought to be quashed is perused in its entirety, it reveals that mother-in-law of complainant along with her sister Sheela Kapoor (petitioner herein) had been taunting and teasing complainant on trivial issues, as a result thereof, she was under mental stress. 3. After having perused complaint in its entirety, complainant can be said to have made following allegations, extract whereof is reproduced herein-below: 2026:HHC:33156 -5- “1.) Extract from Para No. 4 of complaint “The complainant was told by his father that he (husband) kept on talking to his mother Lalita and his Massi Sheela (petitioner) for hours after her call or text message and his abnormal behaviour towards the complainant is on the direction of both these ladies namely Lalita and Sheela.” 2.) Extract from Para No. 6 of complaint “That the mother in-law of complainant Smt. Lalita and her sister Sheela Kapoor shared a close bonding and they both were dominating and had influence in the family decision and lives of the two and they are the persons who are instigating the husband of complainant and threatening her and are causing cruelty and torture to the complainant” 3.) Extract from Para No.6 of complaint “It is further submitted that the mother –in-law of complainant and Massi Sheela Kapoor kept tried best to kill our happiness and starting comparing the amount of gold given by the parents of complainant with the daughter in-law Smt. Sheela and things like that marriage of her son was in 5 star hotel which was sponsored from groom side whereas her marriage was in ordinary hotel. 4.) Extract from Para No. 6 of complaint “Further mother-in law and her sister Sheela were scolding the complainant on her dress style and on a point that the complainant look normal and further for not bringing expensive item to their family.” 5.) Extract from Para No. 6 of complaint “As per their thinking and expectation the girls side is supposed to burn all their life saving just to keep the boy’s family happy and these two are enforcing this in their house and are trying to reinforce in the house of complainant by telling these things to the husband of complainant and putting pressure in his mind also.” 6.) Extract from Para No. 7 of complaint 2026:HHC:33156 -6- “That after the wedding both mother-in-law and sister used to taunt the complainant that “my mother speaks nonstop ,she doesn’t let others speak and she is like this from the beginning” 7.) Extract from Para No. 7 of complaint “Sheela (her sister) was saying that I do shabby make-up and she will teach me how to do it” 8.) Extract from Para No. 7 of complaint “Few days after wedding the complainant visited my husband’s maternal house where his massi again started scanning me and my jewellery passed nasty remarks” 9.) Extract from Para No. 7 of complaint “The mother in-law was inquiring her about her parents property in Solan thereafter she passed a remark “Sheela says didi apna ghar le lo aap India mai and I said ab jab bahu hai solan ki toh ghar ki kya zarurat hai” 10.) Extract from Para No. 7 of complaint “One of her other remarks are “tumhare suit Sheela (my husband massi) ko pasand nai aaye, na hi who salwar hai na hi pant,kaise kapde hai. Next she used to say” tumhara makeup Sheela ko pasand nahi aaya and wo sikhayega in a taunting way” 11.) Extract from Para No. 7 of complaint “My parents gave my husband a very heavy gold bangle as our wedding gift and his mother and his massi made nasty remark which goes like “isko parents ne chota sone ka kada dia”. Second in a row “iske parents mere bhaiyon aur mere in-laws ko kuch gift nahi dete , Diwali pe bhi kuch nahi diya”. Third one in a row “iska ganda sa chotta sa ghar (referring to my parents 3 BHK in Chandigarh) ,bada ghar le kar do tabhi Sunny rahega Chandigarh.” 12.) Extract from Para No. 7 of complaint “Both mother in-law and her sister have mentally harassed the complainant from the days before marriage and are continuing to do so. 13.) Extract from Para No. 8 of complaint 2026:HHC:33156 -7- “That above mentioned three person are threatening to the complainant in many ways so as to do away with her life in case the matter is brought to the notice of authorities or any complaint is lodged. They are openly threatening to cause grievous hurt to the complainant if she visit to Canada or if they happen to come India so there is danger to the life of complainant also as they are constant threat by all these persons.” 4. It also emerges from the complaint that mother-in-law of the complainant, Lalita, and her husband Dr. Sunny Singh have settled in Canada and they are allegedly extending threats to the complainant that in case she comes to Canada, they will cause grievous hurt to her. Complainant also alleged that accused named in the FIR are demanding money, expensive articles and a flat at Chandigarh and as such, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against them. In the afore background, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged against Lalita Singh, Dr. Sunny Singh and present petitioner Sheela Kapoor. Since Lalita Singh and Dr. Sunny Singh, who happen to be mother-in-law and husband of complainant, are not residing in India and have become permanent citizens of Canada, notice issued in the criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of FIR sought to be quashed could not be served upon them and they have been declared proclaimed offender, whereas present petitioner, who happens to be maternal aunt of husband of complainant and sister of her mother-in-law, and at present is residing in Solan, is facing criminal trial. 2026:HHC:33156 -8- 5. 2026:HHC:33156 -8- 5. Before criminal prosecution initiated pursuant to FIR sought to be quashed could be taken to its logical end, petitioner herein has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR on the ground that no case, much less under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 of IPC, is made out against her, rather, FIR has been lodged against her to exert pressure upon her to ensure presence of Dr. Sunny Singh and Lalita Singh in the instant criminal proceedings. 6. Mr. Aditya Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner- accused, (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) vehemently argued that bare perusal of allegations in the FIR itself suggests that false story has been concocted by complainant to harass the accused, that too with the sole motive to ensure that her husband and mother-in-law, who at present are residing in Canada, are compelled to come to India. While making this Court peruse complaint (Annexure P-1) on the basis of which FIR sought to be quashed came to be instituted, Mr. Aditya Thakur vehemently argued that no allegation of demand of dowry or cruelty as defined under Section 498-A of IPC ever came to be made against the accused, who has been unnecessarily harassed and tortured on account of her being closely related to husband and mother-in-law of the complainant. Mr. Thakur further submitted that FIR sought to be quashed came to be instituted after departure of husband and mother-in-law of the complainant from India and since both the above persons have become permanent residents of Canada and they are not being served in criminal proceedings, accused has been 2026:HHC:33156 -9- falsely implicated in the case at hand to create pressure to prevail upon Dr. Sunny Singh and Lalita Singh to come back to India. He further submitted petitioner is a distant relative as far as her relationship with husband of the complainant is concerned and she has nothing to do with the matrimonial discord, if any, inter se complainant and her husband. He submitted that Dr. Sunny Singh and Mrs. Lalita Singh, both are Canadian citizens and have been living in Canada since 1998 onwards and they have acquired citizenship of Canada in year 2003. To substantiate his aforesaid argument, he invited attention of this Court to document placed on record Annexure P-3 (colly). He further submitted that marriage inter se Lalita Singh and Kiran Pal Singh was solemnized on 12.05.1986, but on account of matrimonial discord, they had been living separately since 15.12.2013, and eventually on 13.12.2022, Kiran Pal Singh, father-in-law of complainant, filed a divorce application against Lalita Singh in Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, which proceeded to grant decree of divorce on 20.03.2023. He submitted that since Kiran Pal Singh became inimical towards Lalita Singh and he had been nursing tussles and grudges against her since many years, he also falsely implicated accused (petitioner herein), who happens to be sister of Lalita Singh. He submitted that bare perusal of complaint itself would suggest that there is no direct allegation of harassment and cruelty, if any, against the petitioner, rather, on the basis of hearsay, complainant has alleged that she was being taunted, harassed and teased by petitioner along with her mother-in-law on many occasions. Mr. Thakur submitted that there is not even a whisper in the 2026:HHC:33156 -10- complaint suggestive of the fact that on any occasion petitioner herein along with her sister Lalita Singh ever raised demand of dowry or she in connivance with her sister attempted to mete cruelty, as defined under Section 498-A of IPC to the complainant. He submitted that entire story so narrated by complainant in her complaint is cooked up and concocted one, just with a view to involve the innocent petitioner in wrong and false case. 7. While referring to statement made by complainant in her complaint as well as under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Mr. Thakur submitted that it clearly reveals that immediately after her marriage she stayed with her husband at Jalandhar in her husband's grandmother's house for three months and she never came in contact with the petitioner herein, save and except on two-three family functions and as such, there was no occasion, if any, for petitioner to cause mental harassment to her. He submitted that petitioner herein had an occasion to meet complainant only on two occasions: first during her marriage with Dr. Sunny Singh on 26.04.2021 and thereafter at the time of marriage of her son, which took place on 24.12.2021 at Kandaghat, District Solan. He submitted that bare reading of wrong, false and baseless, trivial allegations as came to be made in complaint, clearly reveals that no offence under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC can be said to be made out against the petitioner, who otherwise is a distant relative of husband of the complainant. He submitted that after lodging of FIR sought to be quashed, Police carried out detailed investigation wherein she disclosed each and every fact, but yet Police, on totally frivolous grounds, proceeded to 2026:HHC:33156 -11- present Challan in the competent Court of law, naming therein petitioner as accused. He submitted that petitioner is compelled to face a trial which otherwise is bound to fail, because there is no material adduced on record by prosecution to prove case, if any, under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC. He further submitted that mere allegation that accused mentally harassed the complainant in respect to demand of dowry does not fulfil the essential ingredients of offence under Section 498-A of IPC, especially in absence of any cogent material or evidence on record to substantiate the allegation. He further submitted that 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 IPC to the complainant, rather, FIR has been filed solely to wreak vengeance against accused, who otherwise is distantly related to husband of the complainant. Mr. Aditya Thakur further argued that since for the submissions made hereinabove, case of the 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 accused is permitted to continue. 8. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General representing respondent-State, and Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate, while refuting aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel representing the accused, vehemently argued that present petition is not maintainable for the 2026:HHC:33156 -12- reason that FIR sought to be quashed has culminated into charge-sheet. They further argued that bare perusal of allegations contained in the FIR itself suggest that from day one of her marriage, complainant was put to undue harassment and maltreatment by her mother-in-law, husband and present petitioner. They submitted that complaint clearly reveals that repeatedly she was taunted, harassed by her husband, mother-in-law and present petitioner for bringing less dowry. They also submitted that repeatedly accused along with her sister Lalita Singh humiliated and insulted her on many occasions for her dressing style, which also amounts to cruelty. They further submitted that though petitioner being closely related to co- accused Dr. Sunny Singh and Lalita Singh, is fully aware of whereabouts of aforesaid co-accused, but yet is not disclosing their whereabouts, as a result thereof, main culprits are not being put to trial by competent Court of law. 9. Mr. Sudhir Thakur further argued that cruelty as defined in Domestic Violence Act, 2005, has a close connection with cruelty as defined in Section 498-A of IPC. He further submitted that bare reading of allegations contained in complaint clearly reveals that petitioner-accused has been constantly harassing complainant on one pretext or other and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by prosecution by registering case against her under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC. He further submitted that otherwise also, mini-trial cannot be conducted in quashing proceedings, nor the correctness or other allegations made in complaint can be examined on touchstone of probable offence that accused may raise to thwart the 2026:HHC:33156 -13- prosecution in quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 528 of BNSS). He further submitted that otherwise also, cruelty, if any, meted to 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 of the allegations levelled by complainant in the FIR sought to be quashed. 10. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record of the case. 11. 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 the scope and competence of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.PC. 12. 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. 2026:HHC:33156 -14- 13. 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 to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. 14. Reliance is placed upon judgment of 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. 15. In this regard, reliance is place upon Amish Devgan vs Union of India and Ors, (2021) 1 SCC 1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “(vii) Conclusion and relief 116. At this stage and before recording our final conclusion, we would like to refer to decision of this Court in Pirthi Chand [State of H.P. v. 2026:HHC:33156 -15- Pirthi Chand, (1996) 2 SCC 37 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 210] wherein it has been held : (SCC pp. 44-45, paras 12-13) “12. It is thus settled law that the exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinize the FIR/charge-sheet/complaint. In deciding whether the case is rarest of rare cases to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, it first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute the offence. It must be remembered that FIR is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into cognizable offence. After the investigation is conducted (sic concluded) and the charge-sheet is laid, the prosecution produces the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code in support of the charge-sheet. At that stage it is not the function of the court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case or to consider necessity of strict compliance with the provisions which are considered mandatory and effect of its non-compliance. It would be done after the trial is concluded. The court has to prima facie consider from the averments in the charge-sheet and the statements of witnesses on the record in support thereof whether court could take cognizance of the offence on that evidence and proceed further with the trial. If it reaches a conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out, no further act could be done except to quash the charge-sheet. But only in exceptional cases i.e. in rarest of rare cases of mala fide initiation of the proceedings to wreak private vengeance issue of process under Criminal Procedure Code is availed of. A reading of a [Vide Corrigendum dated 20-3-1996 issued from Residential Office of Hon’ble Mr Justice K. Ramaswamy.] complaint or FIR itself does not disclose at all any cognizable offence — the court may embark upon the consideration thereof and exercise the power.” 2026:HHC:33156 -16- 16. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in Abhishek Singh vs Ajay Kumar and Ors., (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1313, held as under: “9. The scope of the Court's power to quash and set aside proceedings is well-settled to warrant any restatement. While the arguments advanced have the potential to raise many issues for consideration, we must first satisfy ourselves as to the propriety of the exercise of such power by the High Court. The task of the High Court, when called upon to adjudicate an application seeking to quash the proceedings, is to see whether, prima facie, an offence is made out or not. It is not to examine whether the charges may hold up in the Court. In doing so, the area of action is circumscribed. In Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, it was held: “8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding.” 15. In that view of the matter, we hold that the High Court had improperly quashed the proceedings initiated by the appellant. It stands clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the matter, and the guilt or innocence of the respondents has 2026:HHC:33156 -17- to be established in the trial, in accordance with the law. The proceedings out of the subject FIR, mentioned in paragraph 2 are revived and restored to the file of the concerned Court.” 17. Reliance in this regard is also placed upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.N. John Vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7, which reads as under: “7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it is now more or less well settled as regards the principles to be applied by the court. In this regard, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Court has summarized some of the principles under which FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the following words: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the 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 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 2026:HHC:33156 -18- 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 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 2026:HHC:33156 -19- spite him due to a private and personal grudge.” (emphasis added) 8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6) would be of relevance to us in this case. In clause (1) it has been mentioned that where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, then the FIR or the complaint can be quashed. As per clause (4), where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order dated by the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and in such a situation, the FIR can be quashed. Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the CrPC or the concerned Act under which the criminal proceedings are instituted, such proceedings can be quashed.” 18. Reliance is further placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, which reads as under: “8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice. 2026:HHC:33156 -20- 9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-empting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following situations : (i) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)” 19. 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.P.C. can proceed to quash the proceedings. 20. 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. 21. Close scrutiny of complaint on the basis of which FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged reveals that marriage inter se complainant and Dr. Sunny Singh was solemnized on 28.04.2021 as per Hindu rites and customs. After their marriage, both complainant and her husband stayed at 2026:HHC:33156 -21- Jalandhar for three months. Though relation inter se complainant and her husband remained cordial up to January 2022, whereafter, attitude of Dr. Sunny Singh, i.e. husband of the complainant, changed towards complainant. As per complainant, her husband started doubting her and his behaviour had also become rude/irritable on account of his taking some medicine. Husband of complainant was working in Medical College at Jalandhar, but at present he is staying in Canada. Though both Dr. Sunny Singh and Lalita Singh, husband and mother-in-law of complainant, have been living in Canada since 1990 onwards, but they acquired citizenship of Canada in the year 2003. Careful perusal of Annexure P-3 (colly) reveals that both the above-named persons have become citizen of Canada. It also emerges from the pleadings that Kiran Pal Singh, father-in-law of complainant, was a Judicial Officer in Himachal Judiciary, but on account of some disciplinary proceeding, he was removed from service and thereafter he also went to Canada. Aforesaid Kiran Pal Singh, who had solemnized marriage with Lalita Singh in year 1986, also filed divorce petition against Lalita Singh in the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, and such prayer of him was allowed on 20.03.2023 (Annexure P-4). Allegedly aforesaid Kiran Pal Singh disclosed to the complainant that her mother-in-law Lalita Singh and maternal aunt Sheela Kapoor (petitioner herein) had been instigating her husband against her. 22. If the complaint is read in entirety, it clearly suggests that majority of allegations levelled against Lalita Singh, Dr. Sunny Singh, and 2026:HHC:33156 -22- petitioner herein are based upon hearsay, as there are no specific instances of direct confrontation, if any, between the complainant and above-named persons, rather, majority of allegations which have been attempted to be termed as "cruelty" as defined under Section 498-A of IPC, appears to have been disclosed to the complainant by her father-in-law, Kiran Pal Singh, who had been admittedly inimical to her wife, Lalita Singh and her relations, including petitioner. Aforesaid Kiran Pal Singh, in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has virtually levelled similar allegations as are contained in the complaint lodged at the behest of the complainant. 23. In nutshell, above-named Kiran Pal Singh, has attempted to disclose to the complainant that her husband has been instigated against her by her mother-in-law and her sister, Sheela Kapoor. If the complaint is read in entirety, it nowhere discloses specific act of demand of dowry, if any, rather, precise allegation against accused named in the FIR is they had been taunting and teasing complainant on account of her bringing less dowry as well as her lifestyle, especially with regard to her dressing sense. 24. Having read the complaint in its entirety, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Aditya Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, that there is not even a single incident which suggests that complainant had any direct confrontation, if any, with the petitioner herein, rather, her precise case is that petitioner herein along with her mother-in-law had been troubling her. It is not the case of the complainant that petitioner, who admittedly had been living in Solan, was living with her sister Lalita Singh 2026:HHC:33156 -23- on day-to-day basis, rather, material available on record clearly reveals that for last so many years, Lalita Singh along with her son had been living in Canada. Interestingly, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged after the departure of Lalita Singh and Dr. Sunny Singh from India. Since both the above-named persons are not coming back to India, complainant, finding petitioner herein to be a soft target, also implicated in her case solely with a view to exert pressure upon her to ensure return of her husband and mother- in-law to India. 25. If the statement made by Kiran Pal Singh, late husband of Lalita Singh, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is perused, it clearly reveals that he is not only inimical towards Lalita Singh, but also towards petitioner herein and as such, he is the person who actually had been passing on certain information to her daughter-in-law, i.e. complainant. Though allegedly above-named Kiran Pal Singh had been telling her daughter-in-law, complainant, that her mother-in-law Lalita Singh along with her sister Sheela Kapoor, petitioner herein, had been instigating her husband, but there is no material to prove such allegation. Moreover, such allegation, if any, of Kiran Pal Singh may not be sufficient to constitute offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. 26. Leaving everything inside, this Court finds that the allegations made by the complainant are vague. She, beside implicating her husband, has also attempted to implicate her mother-in-law and present petitioner, who happens to be maternal aunt of her husband. Allegation of demand of dowry or money are totally missing as far as petitioner is concerned. While 2026:HHC:33156 -24- alleging demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty, complainant has neither furnished any specific particulars, nor described any particular instance of harassment. She has failed to mention the time, date, place or manner in which the alleged act of harassment was committed. 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.” 27. 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 2026:HHC:33156 -25- woman or harassment of woman where such harassment is with a view to 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 09.11.2023 under Section 323 2026:HHC:33156 -26- 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 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 2026:HHC:33156 -27- 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 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 2026:HHC:33156 -28- 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 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. 2026:HHC:33156 -29- (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.” 28. 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. 29. 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 2026:HHC:33156 -30- 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 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). 2026:HHC:33156 -31- 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. 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 2026:HHC:33156 -32- 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.” 30. Reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala and Anr, 2009 (14) SCC 466, wherein it has been held that since there is no allegation of harassment on account of dowry, no offence of cruelty either under Explanation (a) or Explanation (b) of Section 498A IPC is made out. 31. 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 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 2026:HHC:33156 -33- 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. 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 2026:HHC:33156 -34- 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 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. 2026:HHC:33156 -35- 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.” 32. 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. 33. 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 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 2026:HHC:33156 -36- 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 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 2026:HHC:33156 -37- 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.” 34. At this stage, this Court also finds it necessary to take note of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and Others, 2014 (2) SCC 1, relevant Para whereof is reproduced herein below: “120.6 As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes 2026:HHC:33156 -38- b) Commercial offences c) Medical negligence cases d) Corruption cases e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.” 35. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment clearly reveals that in matrimonial disputes or family disputes, preliminary inquiry is required to be conducted before lodging FIR. Admittedly, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged at a very belated stage and allegations contained in the same clearly reveal that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of matrimonial discord. If it is so, Police otherwise ought not to have straightaway proceeded to lodge FIR, rather should have proceeded to conduct preliminary inquiry at first instance, enabling accused named in the complaint to render proper explanation qua the allegations levelled in the complaint. 36. Having scanned the entire material adduced on record, which otherwise has been taken note of in the earlier part of judgment, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that an attempt has been made by complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner with the sole motive to ensure that her mother-in-law and husband of the complainant, who have settled in Canada, are compelled to come back to India to face the criminal trial. There are no specific allegations of demand of dowry, harassment and cruelty as defined 2026:HHC:33156 -39- under Section 498-A against the petitioner, who is distantly related to husband and mother-in-law of the complainant. 37. This is a classic case where attempt has been made by complainant to misuse provisions under Section 498-A IPC to settle her score with her husband and mother-in-law, who on account of their being settled in Canada, are out of the reach of Indian Courts. Taking blatant misuse of Section 498-A IPC, Hon’ble Apex Court has held in number of judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of process of law. Reliance in this regard is placed on judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Another Vs. State of Bihar & Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599, which reads as under: “17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.” 38. Reliance is further placed upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 757, which reads as under: 2026:HHC:33156 -40- “11. In the absence of any statutory definition, the term `relative' must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or grand- daughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word `relative' would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption.” 39. Reliance is further placed upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao, 2008 (15) SCC 582, which reads as under: “18. It is plain that as per clause (b) of the Explanation, which, according to learned counsel for the State, is attracted in the instant case, every harassment does not amount to "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 498-A I.P.C. The definition stipulates that the harassment has to be with a definite object of coercing the woman or any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand. In other words, for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. harassment simpliciter is not "cruelty" and it is only when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property etc., that it amounts to "cruelty" punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C.” 40. There can't be any quarrel with the submission of learned Senior Counsel representing the complainant that mini-trial cannot be conducted in quashing proceedings, but once bare perusal of FIR sought to be quashed nowhere discloses prima facie offence, if any, punishable under Section 498- 2026:HHC:33156 -41- A, Constitutional Court is well within its rights to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law. Hence, reliance placed upon by learned Senior Counsel representing the complainant to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Jaiswal vs. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC Online SC 685, as well as CBI vs. Aryan Singh and Others, (2023) 18 SCC 399, may not be of much relevance as far as present case is concerned. As has been observed hereinabove, there can't be any dispute qua the proposition of law that there can't be any mini-trial in quashing proceedings, but once complaint or FIR nowhere discloses commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, rather bare perusal of complaint reveals misuse of process of law, this Court is well within its jurisdiction and rights to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Similarly, this Court finds no application of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Supriya Jain vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2023) 7 SCC 711, relied upon by learned Senior Counsel representing complainant and as such, there is no necessity to take note of the same. In the aforesaid case, it came to be ruled that when investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, trial court should be allowed to look into the material which the Investigating Officer has collected forming part of charge-sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. While exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., Court is not to see that what would be the outcome of the trial court, be it conviction or acquittal of the accused, rather, in normal circumstances, it should permit trial court to conduct trial. There is no occasion, if any, for this Court to find any quarrel 2026:HHC:33156 -42- with the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, rather same being binding on this Court is required to be given due respect. However, same cannot be applied in the given facts and circumstances of the case, where having scanned entire material adduced on record, especially contents of complaint, this Court is of the view that no case, much less under Section 498-A of IPC, is made out, rather, attempt has been made by the complainant to misuse aforesaid provision of law by misstating the facts and relying upon the information shared to her by third party. 41. In view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, as well as law taken into consideration, there is sufficient ground for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR and consequent criminal proceedings against the petitioner to prevent abuse of process of law and to prevent unnecessary harassment to her, against whom there is no evidence to connect her with the commission of offence as alleged in the FIR. Otherwise also, continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner in the present case would be a sheer wastage of time of learned trial Court and the same would amount to subjecting the petitioner to unnecessary and protracted ordeal of trial, which is bound to culminate in acquittal. 42. Consequently, in view of detailed discussions made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. FIR bearing No.36 of 2022 dated 17.11.2022, registered at Women Police Station, Solan, 2026:HHC:33156 -43- District Solan, under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 of IPC as well as consequent proceedings pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, District Solan, H.P., are quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against her. The present petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. August 07, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge