- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12903 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI ACHANTA SATYA VENKATA KRISHNA S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, AS PER FIR R/AT KAPU, PIPPALAVARI THOTA, D-NO.3-127, MOGALTHUR RAMANNA SACHIVALAYAM-I, WEST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 534 281 AS PER AADHAR CARD R/AT 1-227, KESAVADASUPALEM, ACHANTA VARI MERAKA, SAKHINETIPALLI, KESAVADASUPALEM, ANTARVEDIPALEM, EAST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 533 252 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT AS PER DRIVER'S LICENSE AND LEASE AGREEMENT APARTMENT NO.1314 AT 2882 TALL OAKS, CT APT 14, AUBURN HILLS, MICHIGAN USA, MI 48326-4115 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RAKSHA KEERTHANA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WEST WOMEN POLICE STATION BANGALORE, REP.BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. SHRIVIDYA PALLETI CHIRANJEEVI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS W/O SATYA VENKATA KRISHNA ACHANTA, R/AT NO.3, 3RD FLOOR, 10TH MAIN ROAD, SHIVANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. DEEPTHI ALVA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 WEST WOMEN P.S. IN CR.NO.74/2024 (C.C.NO.30347/2024) PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE 24TH ADDL.C.J.M COURT AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner - accused No.1 is before the Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.30347/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Heard Smt. Raksha Keerthana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Deepthi Alva, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 though served, remains unrepresented even today. 3. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent - the complainant get married on 27.04.2023. Immediately thereafter they fly to the United States of America, where the husband had his avocation and live there for about a year. The relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent - the complainant appears to have floundered while they were living in the United States of America. Therefore, certain proceedings are taken up both by the husband and the 2nd - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 respondent - the wife before the respective Court in Michigan. The Court therein declines to accept the plea of the wife of domestic violence, and in turn accepts the plea of the husband seeking protection from the hands of the wife and issues protective orders. In the teeth of the said orders, the wife is said to have travelled back to the shores of the nation and registered a complaint, which becomes a crime in Crime No.74/2024 for the afore-quoted offences. After registering the subject complaint, she flies back to the United States of America and is said to have married and settled with someone else. The crime is investigated into by the jurisdictional Police and a charge sheet is filed, which is pending before the concerned Court as C.C.No.30347/2024. Caught in this quagmire, the petitioner - husband is before the Court in the subject petition. 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Raksha Keerthana would take this Court through the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that the petitioner - husband had suffered at the hands of the wife even in the United States of America and therefore, had to apply for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 seeking protective orders. Protective orders are granted by the Court in the United States of America and in turn the complainant - the wife had alleged domestic violence by the hands of the husband again in the Court in the United States of America. The Court declines to accept the plea of domestic violence. Learned counsel would thus submit that after losing the said case, the complainant comes to India and registers the subject crime and goes back to the United States of America. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner and the complainant are now divorced before a competent Court in the State of Michigan and therefore, would submit that the proceedings must be obliterated, as the wife has now remarried and is not interested even in prosecuting the subject petition and the petitioner due to the pendency of these proceedings, is not able to get his passport renewed nor any other statutory document renewed in the United States of America or in this country, as the case would be. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 6. The afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of events and the dates are all a matter of record. They would not require any reiteration. Suffice it would be to start the narration with the order passed by the Court at Michigan. The Court declines to accept the plea of domestic violence that is projected by the wife. The endorsement that is issued by the jurisdictional Police therein of domestic violence is as follows: Administrative Details: CR No 240020145 Subject 1313 Assault/ Battery/Simple (Incl Domestic and Police Officer [13001] Report Date/Time 10/03/2024 18:53 Occurrence Date/Time From: 05/01/2023 00:00 To: 06/08/2024 00:00 Location 2882 TALL OAKS CT APT 214 Call Source PHONE Dispatched Offense 1313 Assault/ Battery/Simple (Incl Domestic and Police Officer Verified Offense 1313 Assault/ Battery/Simple (Incl Domestic and Police Officer OIC Scott, Cynthia (AHSCOTTC- 00185) OIC Contact Number 2483709460 County 63 - Oakland City/Twp/Village 93 - Auburn Hilla - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 Division Delta Exceptional Clearance Date 10/08/2024 Exceptional Clearance Reason 11-11-Professional declined Action Requested: [ ] Arrest warrant [ ] Search warrant [ ] Juvenile petition [ ] Review only [ ] Forfeiture [ ] Other 7. The petitioner - husband applies for protective orders, which comes to be granted by the following order: "IT IS ORDERED: 6. Shrividya Palleti Chiranjeevi is prohibited from: a. entering onto property where petitioner lives. b. entering onto property at 9756 Ferder Rd., Maybee, MI 48159" Therefore, the wife estopped from entering into the property where the husband lived owing to the counter violence alleged from the hands of the wife to the husband. The wife then comes back to the shores of the nation, registers a complaint of the offence of cruelty on demand of dowry. The complaint, though in detailed narration, lacks the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. All that has happened from the date of marriage and in the United States of America is sought to be projected in the complaint after having failed to secure any orders from the hands of the competent authorities - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 in the United States of America. The gist of the complaint registered by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 - Police reads as follows: "I also feel cheated regarding our physical relationship. It was never normal. Our physical relationship lasted only 1-2 months in the beginning of our marriage and I observed that he had a great difficulty and there was an intimacy gap of almost 9 months in this one year of marriage. Whenever I tried to sit closer to him, he would ask me not to irritate. If I happened to touch his hand even by mistake, he would get irritated and shout at me. He would always go to bed after I sleep. Whenever I asked him for children, my husband stopped me and said we still have time. I have a doubt on his physical capability. One day unable to bear his mental and physical abuse, in the mood of defense, i said that I will call 911 (Police assistance) if you continue to do this to me. He then behaved normal for 2-3 days. Soon after this, to my shock and surprise he told me on 21-06-2024 that we could have to leave for India for attending and assisting his ailing father afflicted to paralysis and he brought me to Bangalore and left me alone mercilessly at Bangalore Airport and went away uninformed. Unable to get secure his presence even after thorough search in the Airport and also being unable to contact him over phone, I went to my parents house dejectedly as I did not have any alternative thus by formulating an evil scheme to desert me by misrepresentation and fraud brought me down to India and left me at Bangalore Airport on 27-06-2024 at around 2:00 am, which fact was even not infromed by him to my parents or my sister. As it was a suddent trip according to him, I also could not inform my parents as we were planning to go to my father in law's house situated at Keshavadasupalem, Hanuman Center, Sakhinetipalli Mandal, Konaseema District-533252, Andhra Pradesh. While so, my mother with great difficulty after making several phone calls, on 02-07-2024 my husband - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 with his family met us in Bangalore and insisted on not continuing marital life with me anymore. I and my parents pleaded him and his parents not to end the marital life, but he his father and his friends abused my mother and also myself with filthy language asking us to do anything of our choice but my husband would not talk to us and would not take me and abruptly they went away from that place. Thereafter, even though I and my family tried to contact him, he had blocked our numbers and consequently there was no response from him. While so, to my shock and surprise on 18-07-2024 he phoned to me saying that he would give divorce to me and he was determined to terminate my marriage, as he had an idea to marry his Niece by name P. Yuvaswini Sri, who is the daughter of his elder sister Pulaparthi Lakshmi (Mobile +91 99598 75070, Resident of Pippalavari Thota, D.No.3- 127, Mogalthur, Ramannapalem, Sachivalayam-I, West Godavari District-534281, Andhra Pradesh) and that he married me on a mistaken notion that marriage should not be performed with blood relatives such as Niece, etc., and that after marriage his inclination to marry his Niece by name P. Yuvaswini Sri, is increased by so many multiples and that he would marry her, for which according to him I am a stumbling block which should be cleared. After this I tried to meet and talk to my husband and his family directly after listening to his divorce message. My husband asked my family members to come to Bhimavaram in Andhra Pradesh and so we left from Bangalore and were waiting for his arrival at the decided venue on 24th July 2024. But only his family members and 2 of his lawyers came while my husband did not come and did not answer our calls. During the same meeting, when we asked for his presence, my husband's family said that he is impotent and he will not come as he is somewhere out of reach. Thus, I was thrown out of matrimonial house mercilessly, my situation here is disastrous, I and my parents are now in melancholy about my life, it is a clear case of cheating and breach of turst apart from committing heinous offences of demanding of additional dowry. The documents such as Wedding Photographs, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 Wedding Card, Flight Tickets, true copy of Passport etc., are enclosed here with and I crave the same as read as part of this report. Therefore, I pray your good-self to punish my husband by name Sri. Satya Venkata Krishna Achanta, my father-in-law by name Achanta Satyanarayana and sister-in-law by name Pulaparthi Lakshmi for the above offences according to law and do justice." The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as is obtaining in Column No.17, reads as follows: "17.
ೇನ ಸಂಪ ಾ ಾಂಶ ಈ ೋಾ ೋಪಣ ಪಯ
ಾಲಂ ನಂ. 13 ರ., ನಮೂರುವ ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ!ತನು #ಾಂಕ 27/04/2023 ರಂದು ಾ&ೆ ರವರನು' ±Á¸ÉÆÛçÃPÀÛªÁV ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ (ಾ)
ೊಂ)ರು*ಾ #ೆ. 2023 ರ., ಾ-1 ರವರ ಮ#ೆಯವರು ಆ
ೆ&ೆ ಮದು+ೆ (ಾಡಲು ವರವ¤&ಾ- ಹುಡುಕು/ ದು0, ಆ ಸಮಯದ,, ಆ ೋ!ತರು ")1ೕ (ಾ23" (ಾ245ೕ6ಯ7 +ೆ8 ೈ: ಮೂಲಕ ಾ-1 ರವರ ಮ#ೆಯವರನು' ಸಂಪ;< (ಾತುಕ*ೆ (ಾ) ಆ
ೆಯನು' ಎ-1#ೊಂ&ೆ ಮದು+ೆ (ಾಡಲು 6ಧ<>ದು0 ?+ಾಹಪ@ವ< (ಾತುಕ*ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ°è J- 1 ಮತು ಎ- 3 ರವರು ಾ-1 ರವರ ತಂೆ*ಾAಗಳನು' ತಮ&ೆ ರೂ. 10,000,00/-ರೂ ನಗದನು' ವರದDೆEಾ-
ೊಡುವಂ*ೆ ಒvÁÛ¬Äದು0, ಆಗ ಅವರು ತಮH ಮಗಳ ಭ?ಷ2 ಉತ ಮ+ಾ-ರುತ ೆಂಬ ಆೆAಂದ ಆ ೋ!ತರ ಒ*ಾ ಯವನು' ಒ!M
ೊಂ)ರು*ಾ ೆ ಅ®èೆ ಎ-1 ಮತು ಎ-2 ರವರು ನನ' ಗಂಡ ಮತು ಅವರ ತಂೆಯು ತಮH ಾQನ(ಾನ
ೆR ಅನುಗುಣ+ಾ- ಮದು+ೆಯನು' ಅದೂ0>Eಾ- (ಾಡSೇ
ೆಂದು µÀgÀvÀÄÛ ºÁ;ದ0>ಂದ 10ಲT ರೂ ವರದDೆ ಹಣ
ೊಟು Vನ'ದ ವWೆವಗಳನು'
ೊ)
ೈXಾದ ಮ&ೆ ಅದೂ0>Eಾ-Yೕ ಮದು+ೆ (ಾ)ರು*ಾ ೆ. ನಂತರ 30-04-2023 ರಂದು ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ!ತನು ಾ-1 ರವ ೊಂ&ೆ ಹ6ಮೂZ &ೆ [ೋಗಲು ಆ
ೆಯ \ೕಷಕ ೇ 05 ಲTರೂಗಳನು' ಆತ6&ೆ 6ೕ)ರು*ಾ ೆ, ಹ6ಮೂZ6ಂದ ]ಂರು-ದ ನಂತರ, ಸು(ಾರು 2 +ಾರಗಳ
ಾಲ ಸದ> ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ!ತನು ತನ' [ೆಂಡ/^ಂ&ೆ ಇೇ Sೆಂಗಳ`ರು ನಗರದ ಬಸ+ೇಶaರನಗರ - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 \ೕb cಾDಾ +ಾ2! ಯರುವ ಮ#ೆ ನಂ.23, 3#ೇ ಮಹ), 10#ೇ ಮುಖ2ರೆ , eವನಗರ, ಾfಾgನಗರ, Sೆಂಗಳ`ರು-560010 ಇ +ಾಸ?ದು0, ತದ ನಂತರ ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ!ತನು
ೆಲಸ (ಾಡು/ ದ0 USA ನರುವ Wೆhಾ4A:, iVಗZ&ೆ 1000 ;4¸Àèj Wೆkl, FCA US LLC, 1000 ;4¸Àèj Wೆkl ಇ&ೆ [ೋಗಲು #ಾಂಕ 23/05/2023 ರಂದು [ೊರದು0, ಆಗಲೂ ಸ[ಾ ಾ-1 ರವರ ತಂೆ*ಾAಗmೇ ?(ಾನ ಶುಲR
ಾR- 5.ಲTರೂಗಳನು' ಎ-1 6&ೆ 6ೕ)ರು*ಾ ೆ, ಅದರಂ*ೆ ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ!ತನು ಾ-1 ರವರನು' ಕ ೆದು
ೊಂಡು ಅn>
ಾದ nೕಲRಂಡ ಸQಳ
ೆR [ೋ-ರು*ಾ #ೆ, ಅ, ಾ-1 ರವರು ಆತ#ೊಂ&ೆ ಸಂಾರ oಾ4ರಂpದ 1#ೇ ನಂದ ಆತನು [ೆಚುrವ>Eಾ- ರೂ.50,00,000/- ರೂ ವರದDೆ&ಾ- ಒ*ಾ Aಸು/ ದುದಲೆ, [ೊಸ
ಾರನು'
ೊ)ಸುವಂ*ೆ ;ರುಕುಳ 6ೕಡು*ಾ ಜಗಳ (ಾ) [ೊWೆದು ಮ#ೆAಂದ [ೊರ&ೆ [ಾ;ರು*ಾ #ೆ. ಆಗ ಾ-1 ರವರು ತZನ ತಂೆ*ಾAಗt&ೆ uೕZ (ಾ) /tದು0, ಅವರು ಎ-16&ೆ ಕ ೆ (ಾ) ಎಚr>
ೆ 6ೕ)ದ0>ಂದ ಆತನು ಾ-1 ರವರನು' +ಾಪb ಮ#ೆ^ಳ&ೆ ೇ>
ೊಂ)ರು*ಾ #ೆ. ಕmೆದ #ಾಂಕ 24-10-2023 ರಂದು ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ!ತನು ತನ&ೆ ರೂ.30,00,000/-ರೂಗಳನು' ದಸ ಾ ಉಡು&ೊ ೆEಾ-
ೊ)ಸುವಂ*ೆ ಒ*ಾ Aರುವvದಲೆ, ೕoಾವtಯ ಪ4ಯುಕ , #ಾಂಕ, 12-11-2023 ರಂದು ಅnೕ>
ಾದ, [ೊಸ
ಾರು ಖ>ೕಸಲು ಕ6ಷw ರೂ. 20,000,000/-
ೊ)ಸುವಂ*ೆ ಒ*ಾ Aದು0, ಎ-2 ಮತು ಎ-3 ಆ ೋ!ತರೂ ಸ[ಾ ಎ-1 6&ೆ ಸ\Mೕ:< (ಾಡು*ಾ ಅವನು
ೇtರುವ ಹಣವನು'
ೊ)ಸದ0 ೆ Wೈ1ೕb<
ೊಡುವಂ*ೆ [ೇtರು*ಾ ೆ, ಅಲೆ ಎ-3 ಆ ೋ!ತಳx ತನ' ಮಗಳನು' ಎ-16&ೆ ಮದು+ೆ (ಾಡಲು ಉೆ0ೕe ಆತ6&ೆ ಹಣ
ಾR- ಒ*ಾ Aಸು ವಂ*ೆ [ೇt
ೊಟು oೆ4ೕ ೇ! ]ಂೆ
ೊ)ಸು/ ದು0, ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ!ತನು ಾ-1 ರವರನು' !4ೕ/ ?yಾaಸದಂದ
ಾಣೆ ಆ
ೆ^ಂ&ೆ ಾಂಪತ2 gೕವನವನು' (ಾಡೆ ಆ
ೆಯನು' ೆaೕzಸು*ಾ [ೊWೆದು ಬWೆದು ]ಂೆ 6ೕ)ರು*ಾ #ೆ. ಾ-1 ರವರು ತನ' ಗಂಡನ ವತ<#ೆಯು ಮುಂೆ ಸ>[ೋಗಬಹೆಂಬ 6>ೕ{ೆAಂದ ಆತನ ಎXಾ ]ಂೆಯನು' ಸ]
ೊಂ)ರು*ಾ ೆ, ಆದ ೆ ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ!ತನು #ಾಂಕ 21-06-2024 ರಂದು ತನ' ತಂೆಯವ>&ೆ oಾಶa<+ಾಯು ಆ-ದು0, ಅವರನ' #ೋ)
ೊಂಡು ಬ ೋಣ+ೆಂದು [ೇt ಅnೕ>
ಾಂದ #ಾಂಕ 27/06/2024 ರಂದು Sೆಳ-ನ fಾವ 2.00 ಗಂhೆಯ Sೆಂಗಳ`>&ೆ ಕ ೆತಂದು ಆ
ೆಯನು' Sೆಂಗಳ`ರು ಅಂತರ ಾz|ೕಯ ?(ಾನ 6Xಾ0ಣದ 6ದ<ಯ+ಾ- }ಟು [ೊರಟು [ೋ-ರು*ಾ #ೆ. ಆದ
ಾರಣ ಸದ> ಆ ೋ!ತರ ?ರುದ~ nೕಲRಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ಅನaಯ ೋಾ ೋಪDೆ ಸೆ." - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would indicate vague instances of alleged torture, while there is none being projected against the petitioner in the case at hand, though the case concerns the husband. It is no rule that if the husband is the accused, proceedings must be permitted to be continued. 8.1 The Apex Court even in cases where the husbands are drawn into the proceedings without any rhyme or reason, has directed the courts to examine the issue beyond the complaint and arrive at a finding even against them. The Apex Court in the case of ACHIN GUPTA V. STATE OF HARYANA,1 has held as follows: "…. …. …. 24. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute. …. …. …. 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 32. Many times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a molehill. Instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings about complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that comes in the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the police, as if the police is the panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches up to the police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hypersensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned. The only reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill- treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. However, the police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends. In all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498-AIPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. …. …. …. 35. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. [Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 488] , authored by one of us (J.B. Pardiwala, J.), the legal principle applicable apropos Section 482CrPC was examined. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482CrPC or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines. 36. 36. For the foregoing reasons, we have reached to the conclusion that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the appellant, the same will be nothing short of abuse of process of law and travesty of justice. This is a fit case wherein, the High Court should - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 have exercised its inherent power under Section 482CrPC for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings. 37. Before we close the matter, we would like to invite the attention of the legislature to the observations made by this Court almost 14 years ago in Preeti Gupta [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] as referred to in para 25 of this judgment. We once again reproduce paras 37 and 38, respectively, as under : (SCC p. 677) “37. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislature. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. 38. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the Hon'ble Minister for Law and Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.” (emphasis supplied) 38. In the aforesaid context, we looked into Sections 85 and 86, respectively, of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which is to come into force with effect - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 from 1-7-2024 so as to ascertain whether the legislature has seriously looked into the suggestions of this Court as made in Preeti Gupta [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] . 39. Sections 85 and 86, respectively, are reproduced hereinbelow: “85. 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. 86. Cruelty defined.—For the purposes of Section 85, “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.” 40. The aforesaid is nothing but verbatim reproduction of Section 498-AIPC. The only difference is that the Explanation to Section 498-AIPC, is now by way of a separate provision i.e. Section 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023." 8.2. The Apex Court later in the case of BELIDE SWAGATH KUMAR vs. STATE OF TELANGANA2, has again considered that without rhyme or reason, the husband and the 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2890 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 relatives of the husband are being dragged into the proceedings, which on the face of it, would become an abuse of the process of the law, and it is held as follows: “…. …. …. 18. Section 498A of the IPC deals with offences committed by the husband or relatives of the husband subjecting cruelty towards the wife. The said provision reads as under: “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 19. Further, Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act talk about the penalty for giving or taking or demanding a dowry. “3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.— (1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more. Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,— (a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act; (b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act: Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given. 4. Penalty for demanding dowry.— If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.” 20. An offence is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC when a husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty, which may result in imprisonment for a term extending up to three years and a fine. The Explanation under Section 498A of the IPC defines “cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC to mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b). The first limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC states that “cruelty” means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that cruelty means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Further, clause (b) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC states that cruelty would also include harassment of the woman where such harassment is to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 21. Further, Section 3 of the DP Act deals with the penalty for giving or taking dowry. It states that any person who engages in giving, taking, or abetting the exchange of dowry, shall face a punishment of imprisonment for a minimum of five years and a fine of not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the dowry, whichever is greater. Section 4 of the DP Act talks of penalty for demanding dowry. It states that any person demanding dowry directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardians of a bride or bridegroom shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 22. The issue for consideration is whether, given the facts and circumstances of the case and after examining the FIR and the Complaint Case, the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings against the appellants arising out of FIR No. 29 of 2022 dated 27.01.2022 and the Complaint Case No. 1067 of 2022 under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. 23. Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases where the allegations have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law. The allegations put forth by the complainant-respondent No. 2 have been considered by us. In our view, they reflect the daily wear and tear of marriage and can, in no way, be categorised as cruelty. The act of the accused- appellant of sending money back to his family members cannot be misconstrued in a way that leads to a criminal prosecution. The allegation that the accused-appellant forced the complainant- respondent No. 2 to maintain an excel sheet of all the expenses, even if taken on the face value, cannot come under the definition of cruelty. The monetary and financial dominance of the accused- appellant, as alleged by the complainant- respondent No. 2, cannot qualify as an instance of cruelty, especially in the absence of any tangible mental or physical harm caused. The said situation is a mirror reflection of the Indian society where men of the households often try to dominate and take charge of the finances of the women but criminal litigation cannot become a gateway or a tool to settle scores and pursue personal vendettas. Furthermore, the other allegations of the complainant-respondent No. 2 such as lack of care on the part of the husband-the accused-appellant during pregnancy and postpartum and constant taunts about her after-birth weight, if accepted prima facie, at best reflect poorly upon the character of the accused-appellant but the same - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 cannot amount to cruelty so as to make him suffer through the process of litigation. 24. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the complainant-respondent No. 2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that the husband and his family along with the accused-appellant herein mentally harassed her with a demand of dowry, the complainant-respondent No. 2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. Although she has alleged that an amount totalling to Rupees One Crore was demanded by the accused-appellant and his family members, the complainant-respondent No. 2 has failed to put forth any evidence or material on record to elaborate or substantiate the same. Furthermore, the complainant- respondent No. 2 has failed to impress the court as to how the said alleged harassment has caused her any injury, mental or physical. There has been no remote or proximate act or omission attributed to the accused-appellant that implicates him or assigns him any specific role in the said FIR for the offence of 498A of the IPC. Merely stating that the accused-appellant has mentally harassed the complainant-respondent No. 2 with respect to a demand of dowry does not fulfil the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC especially in the face of absence of any cogent material or evidence on record to substantiate the said allegations. The term “cruelty” cannot be established without specific instances. The tendency of invoking these sections, without mentioning any specific details, weakens the case of prosecution and casts serious aspersions on the viability of the version of the complainant. Therefore, this Court cannot ignore the missing specifics in an FIR which is the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State. In such cases involving allegations of cruelty and harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against perpetrators in specific terms to involve such perpetrators into the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them and therefore mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specifics - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 against such persons would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings. 25. In this regard, it would be apposite to rely on the judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (“Bhajan Lal”) with particular reference to paragraph 102 therein, where this Court observed: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 26. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial dictum, we find that none of the offences alleged against the accused-appellant herein is made out. In fact, we find that the allegations of cruelty, mental harassment and voluntarily causing hurt against the accused-appellant herein have been made with a mala-fide intent with vague and general allegations and therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and particularly - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 sub-paragraphs (1) and (7) of paragraph 102, extracted above, squarely apply to the facts of these cases. It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution emanating from the FIR and consequent Complaint Case No. 1067 of 2022 to continue. 27. Furthermore, at this juncture, we find it appropriate to quote the judgment of this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 wherein it was observed: “27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. xxx 30. The inclusion of Section 498- A IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-A IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-A IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. 31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498- A IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant, husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498-A IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.”.” (Emphasis supplied at each instance) 8.3. The Apex Court in ACHIN GUPTA supra and BELIDE SWAGATH KUMAR supra clearly lays down that without there being any allegation, the husband or the - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35120 CRL.P No. 12903 of 2024 members of the husband's family cannot be drawn into the web of proceedings. 9. In the peculiar facts where there is nothing found against the husband. More so in the light of the fact that the wife is not appearing before the Court on the score that she has already married someone else after divorce, if further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.30347/2024 pending before the 24th Addl. CJM Court, Bengaluru stand quashed qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK/ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30