- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8720 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAJANNA, S/O LATE BORALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO.822, 3rd MAIN ROAD, 3rd CROSS, BEHIND GOVT. COLLEGE, SRS ROAD, PEENYA, BENGALURU NORTH, PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES, KARNATAKA – 560 058. 2. SMT. S.LAKSHMIDEVI, D/O LATE SHIVARAMAIAH, W/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.822, 3rd MAIN ROAD, 3rd CROSS, BEHIND GOVT. COLLEGE, SRS ROAD, PEENYA, BENGLAURU NORTH, PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES, KARNATAKA – 560 058. 3. SMT. S.PADMAVATHI, D/O LATE SHIVARAMAIAH, W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 R/AT NO.822, 3rd MAIN ROAD, 3rd CROSS, BEHIND GOVT. COLLEGE, SRS ROAD, PEENYA, BENGALURU NORTH, PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES, KARNATAKA – 560 058. 4. SRI. S.SHYAMASUNDAR, S/O LATE SHIVARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.805, 3rd CROSS, 3rd MAIN, SRS ROAD, PEENYA, BENGLAURU NORTH, PEENYA INDUSTRIES, KARNATAKA – 560 058. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDAN B. K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY RMC YARD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU DISTRICT, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 009. 2. SMT. B.PRAMEELA, W/O S.KRISHNA, D/O BORALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 R/AT NO. 805, 3rd CROSS, 3rd MAIN, SRS ROAD, PEENYA BENGALURU NORTH, PEENYA INDUSTRIES, BENGALURU – 560 058. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. VIVEK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.130/2022 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506, 34, 498A, 504 OF IPC, REGISTERED BY RMC YARD P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADDL.C.M.M COURT BENGALURU CITY AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners-accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 are before the Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.130/2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 506, 34, 498A, 504 of the Indian Penal Code. During the subsistence of the petition, 3rd petitioner-accused No.3 is no more. Therefore, the crime has stood abated qua accused No.3 one late Smt.S.Padmavathi. Who remain in the fray is accused - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 Nos.2, 4 and 5. Therefore, the petition is answered qua accused Nos.2, 4 and 5. 2. Heard Sri.Chandan B.K. learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Vivek, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record. 3. Before entering upon merit of the matter, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the protagonists of the lis. The 2nd respondent is the complainant W/o one S.Krishna-accused No.1 who is not before the Court. 1st petitioner-accused No.5 is the husband of the 2nd petitioner- accused No.4 and the 2nd petitioner-accused No.4 is the sister- in-law of the complainant. The 4th petitioner-accused No.2 is said to be the brother-in-law of the complainant. Marriage between the 2nd respondent-complainant and one Krishna- accused No.1 takes place in the year 2009. The relationship between the two flounders. On floundering of the relationship, the complainant registers the subject complaint on 6.8.2022 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 before the jurisdictional police alleging the aforesaid offences. The registration of crime brings the petitioners to this court in the subject petition. This court grants an interim order of stay only in so far as petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 and refuses to grant stay in so far as the 4th petitioner-accused No.2 is concerned. Therefore, the proceedings are now continued against the husband-accused No.1 and the brother-in-law of accused No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would not press the petition qua accused No.2-4th petitioner. As observed herein above, relationship between accused No.1 and the complainant flounders and floundering of the relationship leads the complainant to register a complaint which becomes a crime in Crime No.130/2022 for the aforesaid offences. Since the issue has now been brought before the Court on registration of the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows: “ೆ, ೕ ಇ ೆ ಕ ಆ .ಎ. ಾ ೕ ಾೆ, ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 ಇಂದ, !"ೕಮ$ ಪ"&ೕ'ಾ ( )ೋಂ ಕೃಷ- 27 ವಷ ನಂ.805, 3/ೇ )ಾ",3/ೇ 0ೕ, ಎ.ಆ .ಎ. ರ ೆ1 2ೕಣ4, ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ 5.ಸಂ.: 9741141243 7ಾನ48ೇ, 9ಷಯ:- ನನ; ಗಂಡ/ಾದ ಎ.ಕೃಷ- ಮತು1 0ೖದುನ ?ಾ4ಮಸುಂದ ಎಂಬುವರು 7ಾನಕ Aಾಗೂ BೈCಕ Cಂ ೆ Dೕಡು$1ದುE ಇವರ 9ರುದE ದೂರು. /ಾನು 0ೕನ 9'ಾಸದF ನನ; ಗಂಡ 0ೖದುನ ಮತು1 ನನ; ಮಗು9/ೊಂGೆ Hಾಸ9ದುE ಗೃCIಾJರುKೆ1ೕ/ೆ. ನಮLದು ಮೂಲತ: 8ಾಮನಗರ NOೆF, 7ಾಗP Kಾಲೂಕು, ಕುದೂರು AೋಬQ, 7ಾGೊಂಡನಹQS ಾ"ಮದವ'ಾJದುE ನನ; ತಂBೆ ೋರಂಗಯ4 ವ4ವ ಾಯ 7ಾP)ೊಂPದುE, KಾT ?ಾಂತಮLನವರು ವ4ವ ಾಯ 7ಾP)ೊಂPರುKಾ18ೆ. ನಮL ತಂBೆ KಾTೆ /ಾವU ಇಬVರು ಮಕWಳX ನನ; ಅಣ-/ಾದ !ವUಕು7ಾ ರವರು ಹೂ9ನ 7ಾ)ೆZನF )ೆಲಸ 7ಾP)ೊಂPರುKಾ18ೆ. 2009 ರF ನನೆ ೆಂಗಳ[ನ ಎ.ಕೃಷ- ಎಂಬುವವ8ೊಂGೆ ಎ.ಎ\.ಆ ದF ಮದುHೆ ಆTತು. ಮದುHೆ ಆBಾJDಂದ ಸಂ ಾರ ]ೊKೆ ನನ; ಗಂಡ ಾವUBೇ )ೆಲಸ 7ಾಡBೇ ಬ[ ಕುPದು ಬಂದು ನನ; ]ೊKೆ ಜಗಳ 7ಾP)ೊಂPದEನು. ಮದುHೆ ಮುಂ_ೆ ನನ; ತಂBೆೆ ನನ; ಗಂಡ ಮತು1 ಅವರ ಅಕW ಾವಂGರು $Qದರು. /ಾನು ೆಂಗಳ[ನF Bೊಡ` [ಯ\ ಎ ೇZ aೈ/ಾb 7ಾP)ೊಂPರುKಾ1/ೆ. )ೈ ತುಂಬ ಹಣ ಬರುKಾ1Bೆ ಅಂKಾ ಸುಳXS AೇQ ನನ;ನು; ಮದುHೆ 7ಾP)ೊಂPರುKಾ18ೆ. ನನ; ಮದುHೆಯ ಸಮಯದF 500 ಾ"ಂ ಬಂಾ[ ¤Ãr vÀÄA¨Á ]ೋ8ಾJ ಮದುHೆ 7ಾP)ೊdರುKಾ18ೆ. ಮದುHೆಾದ 0ೕOೆ ನನ;ನು; ಮKೆ1 ಹಣ Kೆೆದು)ೊಂಡು ಬರಲು ೈದು Cಂ ೆ DೕPದEರು, ಸು7ಾರು 3,00,000/ ಹಣ ಮತು1 20ಾ"ಂ ಬಂಾರ Kೆೆದು)ೊಂeೆನು 2014 ರF ನಮೆ ಕು. 9Aಾ ಎಂಬ Aೆಣು- ಜDತು. ಮ/ೆಯF /ೋP)ೊಳSದ )ಾರಣ ಆಾೆf ನನಗೂ ಗಂಡDಗೂ ಜಗಳವಗು$1ತು1. 2018 /ೇ ಾನF ಒಂದು Gನ ಬಂದು ನನ; ]ೊKೆ ಜಗಳ 7ಾP )ೈಗQಂದ ನನ;ನು; ಮನ ೊ ಇ_ೆh Aೊeೆದು )ಾDಂದ ಒದುE, ಸೂ'ೆ ಮುಂeೆ, Dೕನು ನನೆ /ೆಮLG/ೇ ಇಲF ನಮೆ ದ[ದE ಬಂತು /ೆಮLG/ೇ ಇಲF Dನ;ನ; ಾT(PD ಎಂದು ೈದರು.2022 ರF ಎ2"ೕ\ $ಂಗಳF ನನ; ಆKೆ ಯವರು ತeೆದು 0ೕOೆ ನನ; ಗಂಡ ¢£Á®Æ dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁr ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄÄAqÉ K¤zÀÄ ¤AzÀÄ E°è ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ಎFಾದರೂ Aಾ'ಾJ Aೋಗು eೈiೕ )ೊjೋಗು ಎಂದು ೈಯು$1ದEರು, ಅಲFBೇ ನನ; 0ೖದುನ/ಾದ ?ಾ4ಮಸುಂದ ಕೂಡ ಇ$1ೕkೆ ನನ; ಗಂಡ ೈಯುವ [ೕ$ಯFlೕ ೈಯಲು mಾ"ರಂnಸುKಾ1/ೆ. ಈೆf ಸು7ಾರು 3 Hಾರದ CಂBೆ £Á£ÀÄ ಮ/ೆಯFರುHಾೆf ನನ; ಗಂಡ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 ಮ/ೆೆ ಬಂದು ಜಗಳ KೆೆGದುE ನನ; ಎಡೈಯನು; CPದು)ೊಂಡು $ರುk ಾಯಪPರುKಾ1/ೆ. ಅಲFBೇ ನನ; ಊಟದF ಏ/ೇನೂ ೆ8ೆರುKಾ1/ೆ. Aಾೆೆ Dೕರು ಸು[ಯುKಾ1/ೆ. ನನ; /ಾGD ಲstೕBೇ9 ಗಂಡ/ಾದ 8ಾಜಣ- ಎಂಾತನು ನಮL ಮ/ೆೆ ಬಂದು “ಏ/ೇ Dಂದು ಅ$ಾJBೆಯಂKೆ eೈiೕ )ೊಟು Aೋೋ)ೆ ಏನು 8ೋಗ Dಂೆ” JAzÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á »A¸É DೕಡುKಾ18ೆ. ಅಲFBೇ ನನ; ಗಂಡನ Aೆಸ[ನF ಆ1ಯನು; /ಾGDಾರದ ಪBಾLವ$, ಲstೕBೇ9ರವರು ನನ; ಅ[9ೆ ಇಲFದಂKೆ ೨೦೧೮ರ /ೇ ಾನF ತಮL Aೆಸ[ೆ 7ಾP)ೊಂPರುKಾ18ೆ. ಅಲFBೇ ಮ/ೆಯFರುವ ವಸು1ಗಳನು; ನಮL ಮ/ೆೆ Kೆೆದು)ೊಂಡು AೋJ ಇಟು)ೊಂPರುKಾ18ೆ. ಅಲFBೇ ನಮೆ ಬರೇ)ಾದ ಾPೆ ಹಣವನು; ಅವ8ೇ Kೆೆದು)ೊಳXS$1BಾE8ೆ. ಅಲFBೇ ಲstೕBೇ9ರವ8ಾ ಪ$ 8ಾಜಣ- ನಮL ಜ&ೕನನು; 7ಾ[ ಅದರ ಹಣವನು; ಅವ8ೆ ಇಟು)ೊಂPರುKಾ18ೆ. 7ಾನಕ Aಾಗೂ BೈCಕ Cಂ ೆ DೕPದ ನನ; ಗಂಡ ಎ.ಕೃಷ- ಮತು1 0ೖದುನ ?ಾ4ಮಸುಂದ /ಾGDಯ8ಾದ ಪBಾLವ$, ಲstೕBೇ9 Aಾಗೂ /ಾGD ಗಂಡ 8ಾಜಣ-ರವರ 9ರುದz )ಾನೂನು [ೕKಾ4 ಕ"ಮ )ೈೊಳSೇ)ೆಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ 7ಾನ4ರF 9ನಂ$)ೊಳXSKೆ1ೕ/ೆ. ವಂದ/ೆಗ'ೆಂGೆ, ತಮL 9?ಾ{ ಪ"&ೕ'ಾ (.” G/ಾಂಕ 06/08/2022 ರಂದು 13:30 ಗಂjೆ ಸಮಯದF }ಾGBಾರರು DೕPದ ದೂರನು; ಪeೆದು ಾಾ 5.ಸಂ~ೆ4 130/2022 ಕಲಂ 498(a), 504, 506 8ೆ 9• 34 ಐ.2. ಪ")ಾರ [ೕKಾ4 ಪ"ಕರಣ Bಾಖಲು 7ಾPರುKೆ1ೕ/ೆ.” 5. A perusal at the complaint would indicate certain horrendous offences against accused No.1-husband and offences against accused No.2-the brother-in-law, it does not mention any overt act by the other accused, which can become the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 of the IPC as is alleged in the case at hand. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 Therefore, permitting further proceedings against petitioner Nos.1 and 2-accused Nos.4 and 5 would undoubtedly run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BELIDE SWAGATH KUMAR v. STATE OF TELANGANA1, wherein, it is held as follows: “….. ….. ….. 18. Section 498A ofthe 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.” 12025 SCC OnLine SC 2890 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 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 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.” 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 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 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. 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 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 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 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 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 proceedings sought to be initiated against them and therefore mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specifics 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. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 (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 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 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 of Bhajan Lal and particularly 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 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 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) The Apex Court in the case of MARAM NIRMALA v. STATE OF TELANGANA2, has held as follows: “….. ….. ….. 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2913 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 12. The appellant(s) herein are the mother-in-law and father- in-law of respondent No. 2. They had filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings instituted against them in C.C. No. 338/2023 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise offence) at Nalgonda alleging offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. 13. By the impugned order, the said criminal petition has been disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant(s) herein to seek discharge in accordance with law. Hence, this appeal. 14. The case at hand pertains to allegations of cruelty and dowry demand made by the respondent No. 2 against the appellant(s) herein. A bare perusal of the FIR however, shows that the allegations made by respondent No. 2 are vague and omnibus inasmuch as there is an absence of any specific instance or occasion detailed with particulars wherein the appellant(s) demanded dowry from respondent No. 2 and on refusal of the same, subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. The only allegations levelled by respondent No. 2 against the appellants herein are that subsequent to the birth of her daughter, the conduct of her husband underwent a change, which is stated to have been on account of the alleged inducement exercised by the in-laws including the appellant(s) herein for the purpose of demanding additional dowry and that pursuant to the counselling conducted at the Women Police Station, Nalgonda, although the husband of respondent No. 2 and his family assured that she would be treated properly, they nevertheless continued to subject respondent No. 2 to mental and physical cruelty. 15. We therefore find that the aforesaid allegations levelled against the appellant(s), even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offences so as to warrant the initiation of criminal proceedings. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 16. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the appellant(s) brought to our notice the judgment of this Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 (“Dara Lakshmi Narayana”) as well as other judgments which squarely apply to this case. We have perused the same. 17. This Court speaking through one of us (B.V. Nagarathna, J.) in Dara Lakshmi Narayana, while dealing with the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings instituted by the respondent wife therein against her husband and in- laws who were charged with offences punishable under Sections 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961, held as follows: “27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to 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 - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-AIPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-A IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. xxx 31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498-A IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant, husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498-A IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case. xxx 34. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by Respondent 2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against Appellant 1 and his family members i.e. Appellants 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within Category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426]. Therefore, the High Court, - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.” (underlining by us) 18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the judgment of this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana would apply. Hence, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The proceedings instituted against the appellant(s) in C.C. No. 338/2023 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise offence) at Nalgonda stand quashed in relation to the appellants herein.” (Emphasis supplied)" In the light of the said circumstance, while permitting further proceedings to go against accused No.2-Shyamasundar, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the investigation or any further proceedings against accused Nos.4 and 5-sister-in-law and her husband, finding no allegations against them, failing which it would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R [I] Criminal petition in so far as accused No.2 stands dismissed. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3635 CRL.P No. 8720 of 2022 [II] Criminal petition in so far as accused No.3 stands abated. [III] Proceedings in respect of F.I.R. in Crime No.130/2022 pending before the 9th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, qua accused Nos.4 and 5 stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0 CT:SS