RAJA HUSSAIN @ RAJA @ HUSSAIN vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
R
Reserved on : 18.08.2026
Pronounced on : 04.11.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 04 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4532 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
RAJA HUSSAIN @ RAJA @ HUSSAIN
S/O G.HUSSAIN SAB
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TH TH
9 MAIN CROSS, 29 WARD
MJ NAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR
HOSAPETE – 583 201.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI PARAMESWARAPPA C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY UDUPI WOMEN PS
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OFFICE AT BENGALURU
OFFICE AT HIGH COURT BUILDING
OPPOSITE VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU – 560 001.
Digitally
signed by
CHETAN B C
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
2. THABASUM
W/O G.RAJA HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT MANDAVI
PRINCE PALACE
TH
10 FLOOR, AMBAGILU PUTTUR
UDUPI – 576 105.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SMT.HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 03.04.2023 ARISING OUT OF
CR.NO.57/2022 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UDUPI
WOMEN P.S., UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 323, 504, 506 OF IPC AT
ANNEXURE-C NOW PENDING AS C.C.NO.2125/2023, BEFORE THE
ND
PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE 2 ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
AND ACJM UDUPI, WHEREIN THE PETITIONER IS ARRIVED AS
ACCUSED NO.1.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.08.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
- 3 -
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner, said to be a politician, is now knocking at the
doors of this Court, calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.2125
of 2023 arising out of crime in Crime No.57 of 2022 registered for
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of
the IPC.
2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: -
nd
The 2 respondent is the complainant. The petitioner gets
nd
married to the 2 respondent on 13-01-2022. The marriage is said
to have been mediated or brokered by a mutual friend. The
petitioner and the complainant along with the family members of
the petitioner continued to reside in the same roof after the
marriage for a brief period. The relationship between the petitioner
and the complainant is said to have floundered. The floundering of
the relationship led to skirmishes between the husband and the
nd
wife. This leads to certain proceedings initiated by the 2
respondent over the husband and other members of the family.
- 4 -
This becomes a crime in Crime No.57 of 2022 for the afore-quoted
offences. The police then conduct investigation and file a charge
sheet against the husband and dropped others. Filing of the charge
sheet and taking of cognizance by the concerned Court has driven
the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
3. Heard Sri Parameswarappa C. , learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri K. Nageshwarappa , learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and
Smt. Haleema Ameen , learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that there is not a single ingredient of the
offences so alleged present in the case at hand. It is a habit of the
nd
2 respondent/complainant to get married, bring up rift in the
family, file cases after cases, settle them and make money out of it.
The learned counsel would take this Court through the documents
appended to the petition to demonstrate that the complainant, with
30 years of age now, has married nine times and on every occasion
the modus operandi is the same that: she marries, fixes up a fight,
- 5 -
files cases and settles the disputes. He would submit that every
one of the acts of the complainant is placed before the Court by
way of an affidavit.
5. Per contra , the learned counsel Smt. Haleema Ameen
nd
appearing for the 2 respondent would vehemently refute the
submissions in contending that the marriage certificates produced
th
to show or demonstrate that the petitioner is the 7 husband are all
fake. The pictures are morphed, as the petitioner is a politician and
he can get it done the way he wants. The learned counsel
acknowledges that the complainant has had few marriages, but
would submit that the complainant has undertaken those marriages
after she has obtained divorce, talaq or khula from all of them and
there is no overlap of marriage is what is contended. However, the
learned counsel would admit four marriages i.e., marriages-1, 3, 5
and 7. The learned counsel would however, submit that the
proceedings against the petitioner must not be quashed, as there is
abundant material against the husband/petitioner for having
indulged in cruelty on the score of demand of dowry. The learned
counsel seeks dismissal of the petition.
- 6 -
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
7. In the light of the afore-narrated facts, and before
embarking upon an examination of the controversy that has
brought the parties before this Court, I deem it appropriate to
traverse the matrimonial history of the complainant, as projected
by the petitioner on the strength of documents placed on record.
The said history, according to the petitioner, is not merely a
narration of successive matrimonial alliances, but discloses a
recurring pattern of marriages, matrimonial discord, institution of
criminal proceedings and their eventual culmination in settlements.
It is this alleged pattern of conduct that forms the foundation of the
petitioner's plea that the criminal proceedings now instituted
against him are yet another manifestation of an abuse of the
process of law. The marriages, as projected in the petition, are
therefore noticed in their chronological sequence.
- 7 -
st
1 marriage:
8. The matrimonial journey of the complainant is said to have
commenced in the year 2004, when she was barely 16 years of
age. On the premise that her personal law permitted marriage at
that age, she is said to have entered into wedlock with one
Mohammed Hussain. Two children are stated to have been born
from the said wedlock. The marriage, however, did not endure.
Allegations of infidelity attributed to the husband are said to have
brought the matrimonial relationship to an end, culminating in a
divorce. Thus, the first chapter of the complainant's matrimonial life
came to a close.
nd
2 marriage:
9. A few years after the dissolution of the first marriage, the
complainant is said to have entered into a second matrimonial
alliance with one Abdul Hameed. Matrimonial discord appears to
have travelled beyond the confines of the household and entered
the corridors of criminal litigation, with this husband initiating
proceedings in C.C.No.1119 of 2018 against the complainant and
- 8 -
the third husband. Thus, the curtain fell on the second marriage as
well.
rd
3 marriage :
nd
10. On 04-08-2026, the 2 respondent marries one Anwar.
nd
He becomes the third husband of the 2 respondent. This marriage
is also said to have ended, not by itself but, in a case registered
against the husband and the complainant herein by the second
husband.The offences alleged were cheating as obtaining under
Sections 418, 419, 420 and 464 of the IPC. Another proceeding had
rd
also been filed by the complainant against the 3 husband invoking
the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act in Crl.Misc.60 of 2019.
This also comes to be settled by a joint memo.
th
4 marriage :
11. The fourth marriage is stated to have been solemnized on
06-12-2019 with one Apsar Pasha. The marriage certificate
evidencing the said alliance is appended to the memo of documents
placed before this Court. Thus, another matrimonial chapter is said
- 9 -
to have commenced and concluded with the death of this husband
on 29-03-2021.
th
5 marriage:
12. The complainant is said to have married one Mohammed
Rafeeq on 06-06-2020, who, according to the petitioner, became
her fifth husband. The relationship once again appears to have been
followed by threat of criminal litigation. The complainant is stated to
have threatened to register a complaint against Mohammed Rafeeq,
alleging dowry harassment, which came to light in the course of
investigation of Crime No.40 of 2023, filed later, against the
complainant for her fraud.
13. An intriguing circumstance, however, emerges from the
documents. The proceedings instituted by the complainant against
rd
her 3 husband in Criminal Miscellaneous No.60 of 2019 are stated
to have been brought to a close upon payment of permanent
alimony of ` 4,00,000/-. Thus, according to the petitioner, the
dispute arising out of the third matrimonial alliance was settled only
after the complainant had entered into her fourth and fifth
- 10 -
marriages. The petitioner seeks to draw significance from this
sequence of events to contend that the matrimonial relationships
and the litigation arising therefrom did not necessarily conclude in
the same chronological order in which the marriages were
solemnized. Thus, according to the petitioner's narrative, five
matrimonial alliances had come and gone, leaving behind a
succession of disputes , threats and settlements.
th
6 marriage :
14. The sixth marriage is stated to have been with one Ham
Jad. Photographs purporting to depict the solemnization of the said
marriage are placed on record. No further documentary material,
however, is produced to establish the circumstances in which the
said relationship came to an end. The photographs are relied upon
by the petitioner to contend that the complainant had entered into
a sixth matrimonial alliance.
15. Another circumstance is also brought to the notice of this
Court. On 29-03-2021, Apsar Pasha, the fourth husband, passed
away. The death certificate appended to the memo of documents
describes the complainant as the wife of the deceased Apsar Pasha.
- 11 -
The petitioner seeks to place reliance upon this circumstance, read
with the documents relating to the subsequent marriages, to
demonstrate what he describes as an overlapping and unusual
sequence of matrimonial relationships. The documentary
significance of these circumstances must, however, be appreciated
in the context in which they are placed before the Court.
th
7 marriage :
16. It is at this juncture that the petitioner enters the
matrimonial narrative. The petitioner and the complainant are
stated to have solemnized their marriage before the office of the
Sub-Registrar on 13-01-2022. The petitioner thus claims to have
become the seventh husband of the complainant. What followed the
marriage, according to the petitioner, is the genesis of the present
controversy. It is specifically averred that within four days of the
marriage, the complainant demanded a sum of ` 5,00,000/- from
the petitioner and threatened to institute criminal proceedings
against him in the event of his failure to accede to the demand. The
matrimonial relationship thereafter appears to have become
irretrievably strained. On 09-07-2022, the complainant registered
- 12 -
the complaint which forms the fulcrum of the present proceedings.
The complaint reads as follows:
“ ,
ಂದ
,
ತಬಸು
30 ,
ಸು
ಾರು ವಷ
. ,
ವಂಗತ ಇ ಾ
: , 10 ,
ಾಸ
ಾಂಡ ಾ ೇ# $ೇ ಮಹ'
,
ಅಂ)ಾ*ಲು
.
ಉಡು -ಾಲೂಕು ಮತು0 1 ೆ2
(6362993878 ).
3ೆ,
,
5ಾ6ಾ78ಾ ಯವರು
,
ಉಡು ಮ:;ಾ <ೕ=# 5ಾ6ೆ
.
ಉಡು -ಾಲೂಕು ಮತು0 1 ೆ2
,
ಾನ ?ೇ
:- .
ಷಯ ಷಯ ಷಯ ಷಯ ನನ@ ನನ@ ನನ@ ನನ@ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡ 1 ?ಾಜ ?ಾಜ ?ಾಜ ?ಾಜ ಹುೇ ಹುೇ ಹು ಹುೇ ೇ Bಾಗೂ Bಾಗೂ Bಾಗೂ Bಾಗೂ ಆತನ ಆತನ ಆತನ ಆತನ ಮ$ೆಯವ?ಾದ ಮ$ೆಯವ?ಾದ ಮ$ೆಯವ?ಾದ ಮ$ೆಯವ?ಾದ BೆಂಡD BೆಂಡD BೆಂಡD BೆಂಡD ಶಹ$ಾF ಶಹ$ಾF ಶಹ$ಾF ಶಹ$ಾF
, ,
)ೇಗಂ )ೇಗಂ )ೇಗಂ )ೇಗಂ ಆ8ೆಯ ಆ8ೆಯ ಆ8ೆಯ ಆ8ೆಯ ಅಣH ಅಣH ಅಣH ಅಣH ಶIJ ಶIJ ಶIJ ಶ IJ ಅಣHನ ಅಣHನ ಅಣHನ ಅಣHನ BೆಂಡD BೆಂಡD BೆಂಡD BೆಂಡD ಶಮ ಶಮ ಶಮ ಶಮ ಪ ಪ ಪ ಪ Bಾಗೂ Bಾಗೂ Bಾಗೂ Bಾಗೂ ನನ@ ನನ@ ನನ@ ನನ@ ಗಂಡನ ಗಂಡನ ಗಂಡನ ಗಂಡನ ಮಕL;ಾದ ಮಕL;ಾದ ಮಕL;ಾದ ಮಕL;ಾದ
,
ಅಜರುMೕ ಅಜರುMೕ ಅಜರು ಅಜರುMೕ Mೕ Bಾಗೂ Bಾಗೂ Bಾಗೂ Bಾಗೂ ಇNಾ ಇNಾ ಇNಾ ಇNಾ ಎಂಬವರು ಎಂಬವರು ಎಂಬವರು ಎಂಬವರು ನನ3ೆ ನನ3ೆ ನನ3ೆ ನನ3ೆ Pರುಕುಳ Pರುಕುಳ Pರುಕುಳ Pರುಕುಳ Rೕ' Rೕ' Rೕ' Rೕ'
ಾನSಕ
ಾನSಕ
ಾನSಕ
ಾನSಕ :ಂೆ :ಂೆ :ಂ :ಂೆ ೆ Bಾಗೂ Bಾಗೂ Bಾಗೂ Bಾಗೂ
, , :-
Tೈ:ಕ Tೈ:ಕ Tೈ:ಕ Tೈ:ಕ ಹ ೆ2 ಹ ೆ2 ಹ ೆ2 ಹ ೆ2
ಾ'
ಾ'
ಾ'
ಾ' ಅಾ V ಅಾ Vಚ ಅ ಅಾ V ಾ V ಶಬMಗಳ=2 ಶಬMಗಳ=2 ಶಬMಗಳ=2 ಶಬMಗಳ=2 RಂS RಂS Rಂ RಂS S )ೆದ8ೆ )ೆದ8ೆ )ೆದ )ೆದ8ೆ 8ೆ BಾPದ BಾPದ BಾPದ BಾPದ ಬ3ೆX ಬ3ೆX ಬ3ೆX ಬ3ೆX
,
$ಾನು ಈ Zೕ=ನ ;ಾಸದ=2 ಾಸಾ*ದುM ಮ[ ಾಲದ=2 :ೕ$ಾ ಎಂಟ ೆ]ಸ#
,
ಎಂಬ ವ ವBಾರವನು@
ಾ'8ೊಂ'ದುM ಈಗ ಉಡು ಯ ^ೕನು
ಾ8ೆ_ನ ಬ`
. 13-01-2022
ಸa;ಾಂತ S8ೊಂಡು ವ ವBಾರ ನbೆS8ೊಂ'ರು-ೆ0ೕ$ೆ $ಾನು $ಾಂಕ ರಂದು
.
Bೊಸ ೇcೆ R ಾS ರ1dಾ )ೇಗಂ ಎಂಬವರ ಮಗ 1 ?ಾಜ ಹು ೇ ಎಂಬವರನು@
.
ಉಡು ಯ ಸe 1ಸfJ ಆgೕSನ=2 1Sh ಮದು ೆdಾ*ರು-ೆ0ೕ$ೆ ಆತನ ಪ ಚಯ
- 13 -
. 1
)ೆಂಗಳi ನ=2 ಸ
ಾರಂಭ ಒಂದರ=2 ಆ*ರುತ0Tೆ ಮದು ೆ ಸಮಯದ=2 ಸಮಯದ=2 ಾV
. 1,50,000/- .
Bಾಗೂ ರೂ ಹಣವನು@ Rೕ'ರು-ೆ0ೕ$ೆ ಮದು ೆdಾದ ನಂತರ 8ೆಲವl ಸಲ ಆತನ
.
ಮ$ೆ3ೆ Bೋ*ರು-ೆ0ೕ$ೆ ನಂತರ ನಮ Tಾಪಂತ 1ೕವನವನು@ ಮ[ ಾಲದ )ಾ'3ೆಯ ಾ2m
.
Bಾಗೂ ಈ Zೕ=ನ ;ಾಸದ=2 ನbೆSರು-ೆ0ೕ ೆ ಮದು ೆdಾದ ಒಂದು ಾರ
ಾತ ಆತ
, .
ನ$ೊ@ಂ 3ೆ ಸ dಾ ಇದುM ನಂತರ ಆತ ಬ` ಹಣ8ಾL
ಾನSಕ :ಂ ೆ RೕಡುD0ದM ನಂತರ
.
ನನ3ೆ ಆತ ಊ ನ=2 ಾಲ
ಾ'ರು-ಾ0$ೆಂದು D`ದು ಬಂತು ಆತನ )ೆದ 8ೆ3ೆ Bೆದ
.
ಆತR3ೆ ಹಣ 8ೊಡುD0TೆM ಈ ಮTೆ ನನ3ೆ ಆತR3ೆ ಮ-ೊ0ಂದು ಮದು ೆdಾ*ರುವlTೆಂದು
.
D`ದು ಬಂತು ಆTಾಯು $ಾನು ನನ3ೆ ಆಸ?ೆdಾ dಾರೂ ಇಲ2 ಎಂಬ 8ಾರಣ ಂದ $ಾನು
.
ಆತ$ೊಂ 3ೆ ಸಂ ಾರ ಮುಂದು ೆ?ೆS8ೊಂಡು Bೋಗ)ೇ8ೆಂಬ 8ಾರಣ ಂದ ಸುಮ R@Tೆ
, ,
ಒಂದು )ಾ ಆತನ ಮ$ೆಯವ?ಾದ ಗಂಡನ BೆಂಡD ಶಹ$ಾF )ೇಗಂ ಆ8ೆಯ ಅಣH ಶ IJ
,
ಅಣHನ BೆಂಡD ಶಮ ಪ ಗಂಡನ oದಲ$ೇ BೆಂಡDಯ ಮಗ ಅಜರು Mೕ Bಾಗೂ
,
ಇNಾ ಎಂಬವರು ಮ$ೆ3ೆ ಬಂ ದುM ಅವರುಗಳp ನನ@=2 qನ@ Bಾಗೂ ಹಣ 8ೊಡ)ೇrೆಂದು
. ,
)ೆದ ಸುD0ದMರು 8ಾರಣ ಆತನ ಅಂಗ' ನಷfದ=2Tೆ ಎಂದು Bೇ`Tಾಗ $ಾನು ಅವರ............
1 . 07-
ಅದಲ2Tೆ ಆತನ ಾಲ8ಾL ಆತR3ೆ ಲt ಹಣ Rೕ'TೆM :ೕರು ಾಗ o$ೆ@ $ಾಂಕ
07-2022 .
ರಂದು $ಾನು ಹಬIದ ಸಲು ಾ Bೊಸ ೇcೆ3ೆ BೋTೆMವl ಆ ಸಮಯದ=2
. 80,000/- .
8ಾ ನವR3ೆ ರೂ 8ೊಟುf ನನ@ ಗಂಡನ 8ಾರನು@ :ಂದ8ೆL ಪbೆ ರು-ೆ0ೕ$ೆ ನಂತರ
$ಾವl ಊ 3ೆ :ಂDರುಗು ಾಗ ಆತನ BೆಂಡDಯ ಮ$ೆ3ೆ ನನ@ನು@ ಕ?ೆದು8ೊಂಡು Bೋದ
. , 10 .
ನಂತರ ಊ 3ೆ :ಂDರು*Tೆವl ಮ$ೆ3ೆ ಬಂದವ$ೇ ?ಾD ಸು
ಾರು 8ೆL ನನ@ ಗಂಡ 1
?ಾಜ ಹು ೇu ನನ3ೆ ಆತನ BೆಂಡDಯ ಮುಂTೆ dಾ8ೆ ಗ ಾcೆ
ಾ'Tೆ ಎಂದು ಗ ಾcೆ
, .
ಾ' ಮುಖ8ೆL Bೊcೆf3ೆ 8ೈ 8ಾಲು 8ಾ=Rಂದ Bೊbೆದು ತು` ರು-ಾ0$ೆ $ಾನು ಆ ಸಮಯ
. ,
ಗಭ ವD ಎಂದು D`ದು ಕೂಡ ನನ3ೆ ಹ ೆ2
ಾ'ರು-ಾ0$ೆ ಆ ಸಮಯ ಆತ ನನ3ೆ )ಾ ವS
,
ರಂbೆ ಸೂ;ೆ ಇನೂ@ ನನ@ ಮ$ೆಯವರ ಷಯದ=2 Rೕನು ಸುಮ $ೆ ಇರ)ೇಕು $ಾನು ಮತು0
ನನ@ ಮ$ೆಯವರು 8ೇ`ದಷುf ಹಣ 8ೊಡ)ೇಕು ಇಲ2 ದM?ೆ ನನ@ ಮಕLಳನು@ ಕ?ೆS Rನ@ನು
.
ಇ=2wೕ 8ೊಂದು ಾಡುವlTಾ* 8ೊ ೆ )ೆದ 8ೆ BಾPರು-ಾ0$ೆ ಈ oದಲು ಸBಾ ನನ3ೆ ಆತ
.
Rೕ'ದ ಹ ೆ2 ಂದ ಮಗು ನ ಗಭ ಾತಾ*ರುತ0Tೆ ಈಗ ಆತ ನನ3ೆ D`ಸTೇ ಮ$ೆ ಟುf
.
Bೋ*ರು-ಾ0$ೆ
, ,
ಆದುದ ಂದ -ಾವlಗಳp ನನ3ೆ Pರುಕುಳ
ಾನSಕ :ಂ ೆ Rೕ' Tೈ:ಕ ಹ ೆ2
, , . ,
ಾ' ಅ ಾ ಚx ಶಬMಗಳ=2 Rಂ S )ೆದ 8ೆ BಾPದ ನನ@ ಗಂಡ 1 ?ಾಜ ಹು ೇ BೆಂಡD
- 14 -
, , ,
ಶಹ$ಾF )ೇಗಂ ಆ8ೆಯ ಅಣH ಶ IJ ಅಣHನ BೆಂಡD ಶಮ ಪ ನನ@ ಗಂಡನ ಮಕL;ಾದ
.
ಅಜರು Mೕ Bಾಗೂ ಇNಾ ರುದM ಸೂಕ0 8ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ 8ೈ3ೊಳy)ೇ8ಾ* ನಂD
:
ಸaಳ ಉಡು
:13-08-2022
$ಾಂಕ
ಇDೕ ತಮ
zಾ{S
ಸ:/-“
The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The
summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 reads
as follows:
“17.
8ೇSನ ಸಂ€ಪ0 ಾ?ಾಂಶ
12 ,
ಈ Tೋ•ಾ?ೋಪಣ ಪತ ದ ಅಂಕಣ ನಂಬ ರ=2 Bೆಸರು ;ಾಸ ನಮೂ Sದ
1 :13/01/2022 1
ಆ ಾತನು ಾ€ $ೇಯವರನು@ $ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ಾ€ $ೇಯವರ
, ,
ಾಸ0ವ ದ ಮ$ೆdಾದ ಉಡು -ಾಲೂಕು ಅಂ)ಾ*ಲು ಎಂಬ= ರುವ
ಾಂಡ #
10 , 1003/10
ಾ ೇ#ನ ಂ‚ ನ $ೇ ಮಹ'ಯ=2 ರುವ Nಾ2ƒm ನಂಬ S ರ=2
, :
ೌ ಾನ ರವರ ಸಮtಮ ಮುS2ಂ ಧಮ ದ ಪದMDಯಂ-ೆ ಮದು ೆdಾ*ದುM $ಾಂಕ
04/04/2022
ರಂದು ಉಡು ಸe 1ಸfJ ಆ ೕ# ನ=2 ಾಹ $ೋಂದ[
. 1
ಾ'S8ೊಂ'ರು-ಾ0?ೆ ಾ€ $ೇಯವರನು@ ಮದು ೆdಾಗುವ oದ ೇ ಆ ಾತನು
, ,
ಇ$ೊ@ಂದು ಮದು ೆdಾ*ದುM oದಲ$ೆಯ BೆಂಡD ಂದ †ೆxೕದನ BೊಂದTೇ ಇದುM ಈ
1
†ಾರವl ಾ€ $ೇಯವ 3ೆ ಆ ಾತನನು@ ಮದು ೆdಾದ ನಂತರದ ನಗಳ=2 D`ದು
. 1 1
ಬಂ ರುತ0Tೆ ಆ ಾತ ಾ€ $ೇಯವರನು@ ಮದು ೆdಾದ ನಂತರ ಾರ
ಾತ ಾ€
1
$ೇಯವರನು@ ಒ;ೆyಯ ೕDಯ=2 $ೋ'8ೊಂಡು ನಂತರದ ನಗಳ=2 ಆ ಾತನು ತನ@
1
oದಲ$ೆ BೆಂಡD Bಾಗೂ ಮಕLಳ ಖq 3ಾ* ಾ€ $ೇಯವ ಂದ ಹಣ 8ೇ`
, 1 1
ಪbೆಯುD0ದುM ಾ€ $ೇಯವರು ಹಣ 8ೊಡಲು R?ಾಕ Sದ?ೆ ಾ€ $ೇಯವ 3ೆ ಅ ಾಚ
1
ಶಬMಗ`ಂದ )ೈದು ಾ€ $ೇಯವರನು@ ಟುf BೋಗುವlTಾ* Bೆದ S
ಾನSಕ ಮತು0
- 15 -
: 07/07/2022
Tೈ:ಕ :ಂ ೆ RೕಡುD ದMವನು ಅ ಾತ $ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ಾ€
1
$ೇಯವರನು@ ಆತನ ಊ?ಾದ Bೊಸ ೇcೆ3ೆ ಕ?ೆದು8ೊಂಡು Bೋ* ಅ=2 ಆತನ oದಲ$ೆ
, 1
BೆಂಡDಯ ಮ$ೆ3ೆ ಕ?ೆದ8ೊಂಡು Bೋ*ದುM ಅ=2 ಆ ಾತ ಾ€ $ೇಯವ?ೊಂ 3ೆ
1
ಗ ಾcೆ
ಾ' ನಂತರ ಾ€ $ೇಯವರನು@ ಾ ಾಸು ಉಡು 3ೆ ಕ?ೆದು8ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು
: 09/07/2022 10:00 1
$ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ?ಾD ಸು
ಾರು ಗಂcೆ3ೆ ಾ€ $ೇಯವರ
1 “
ಾಸ0ವ ದ Zೕ ಾL[Sದ Nಾ2ƒ_ನ=2 ಾ€ $ೇಯವರ=2 Rೕನು ನನ@ BೆಂಡDಯ ಮುಂTೆ
, , "
dಾ8ೆ ಗ ಾcೆ
ಾ'Tೆ )ೇವS ರಂbೆ ಸೂ;ೆ ಎಂದು ಅ ಾಚ ಶಬMಗ`ಂದ )ೈದು ಾ€
1 "
$ೇಯವರ ಮುಖ8ೆL Bೊcೆf3ೆ 8ೈ ಂದ Bೊbೆದು 8ಾ=Rಂದ ತು`ದು ಇನು@ ಮುಂದ8ೆL
ನನ@ ಮ$ೆಯವರ ಷಯದ=2 Rೕನು ಸುಮ $ೆ ಇರ)ೇಕು $ಾನು 8ೇ`ದಷುf ಹಣ 8ೊಡ)ೇಕು
"
ಇಲ2 ದM?ೆ ನನ@ ಮಕLಳನು@ ಕ?ೆS Rನ@ನು@ ಇ=2wೕ 8ೊಂದು ಾಡು-ೆ0ೕ$ೆ ಎಂದು 8ೊ ೆ
)ೆದ 8ೆ BಾP Bೋ*ರುವlದು ತRrೆ ಂದ ದೃಡಪ_fರುತ0Tೆ.
1 498( ), 323, 504, 506
ಆದM ಂದ $ೇ ಆ ಾತ ಕಲಂ ಎ ಐ S
ಐ Sಯಂ-ೆ ‰Šಾಹ ಅಪ?ಾಧ ೆಸರು-ಾ0$ೆ ಎಂಬುTಾ ಸ=2Sದ ಆ?ೋಪಣ ಪ_f.”
Simultaneously, the complainant instituted Criminal Miscellaneous
No.28 of 2022 against the petitioner and his family members
invoking Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005. In the said proceedings, maintenance of
` 6,000/- per month was awarded to the complainant, which the
petitioner is stated to be paying. The proceedings under the
Domestic Violence Act are stated to be pending consideration before
the competent Court. It is the charge sheet filed in Crime No. 57 of
2022 and the criminal proceedings instituted for the allegation of
- 16 -
cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC that is called in question in
the present petition. The petitioner contends that the criminal law
has been invoked not for redressal of any genuine criminal wrong,
but as an instrument of coercion to compel him to yield to the
monetary demands allegedly made by the complainant.
th
8 marriage :
17. The matrimonial narrative, however, does not end with
the petitioner. During the pendency of the proceedings initiated
against him, the complainant is stated to have entered into yet
another matrimonial alliance with one Mohammed Mustaq. The
marriage certificate evidencing the said marriage is appended to the
memo of documents. According to the petitioner, this was the
eighth marriage of the complainant. Upon coming to know of the
said marriages and what he describes as the recurring modus
operandi of the complainant, the petitioner lodged a complaint
against respondent No.2, alleging offences punishable under
Sections 384, 420, 494 and 495 of the IPC, which came to be
registered as Crime No.40 of 2023.
- 17 -
18. The complainant challenged the registration of the said
crime before the Dharwad Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition
No.102969 of 2023. The said petition is stated to be pending
consideration, and no interim order staying the investigation is said
to have been granted. The police thereafter proceeded with the
investigation and filed a charge sheet against the complainant and
others, which has culminated in C.C.No.49 of 2023. The said
complaint reads as follows:
“ 10.
ಪ ಥಮ ವತ
ಾನ ವರ ಯ ವರಗಳp
. . . ,
dಾ7 ?ಾ•ಾ ಹು ೇ ಇವರು
ಾನ ಎS•ೆ ಮತು0 •ೆ ಎಂ ಎŽ S $ಾ dಾಲಯ
, . .63/2023
Bೊಸ ೇcೆ ಇವರ=2 S ನಂ ರ =2 ಸ=2S8ೊಂಡ rಾಸ ದೂರು ?ೆಫJ ಆ
-
ಬಂ ದುM ದೂ ನ ಾ?ಾಂಶ ಏ$ೆಂದ?ೆ dಾ7Tಾರರು ಈ :ಂTೆ )ೆಂಗಳi ನ=2 ಒಂದು
,
?ಾಜPೕಯ ಸ
ಾರಂಭ8ೆL BೋTಾMಗ ‰ ೕಮD ತಬಸು ಇವರು ಪ ಚಯ ಆದುM
,
ಒಬI 3ೊಬIರ ತಮ o)ೈ ನಂಬJ ಪbೆದು8ೊಂಡು
ಾತ$ಾಡುD0ದುM :ೕ*ರು ಾಗ
ಆ?ೋ ತ ಮ:;ೆ dಾ7Tಾರ3ೆ ‘ಾವ$ಾತ ಕಾ*
ಾತ$ಾ' ತಮ3ೆ
: 13.01.2022
ಮದು ೆdಾಗುವಂ-ೆ ಪ ಾ0ಪ
ಾ' $ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ಉಡು ಯ=2 ಮದು ೆ
,
ಾ'8ೊಂ'ದುM ನಂತರ dಾTಾರ3ೆ ಸದ ಮ:;ೆ3ೆ ಈ :ಂTೆ )ೇ?ೆ )ೇ?ೆ
,
ವ P0ಗ;ೆiಂ3ೆ ಮದು ೆ
ಾ'8ೊಂ'ರುವlದು D`ದುಬಂ ದುM ಮದು ೆdಾದ ನಂತರ
.5,00,000/-
ತಬಸು ಇವರು dಾ7Tಾರ3ೆ ರೂ ಹಣ 8ೊಸುವಂ-ೆ ಒ-ಾ0ಯ
, , ,
ಾಡುD0ದುM ಇಲ2 ಾದ=2 dಾ7Tಾರರ Zೕ ೆ 8ೇಸು
ಾಡುವlTಾ* )ೆದ 8ೆ BಾPದುM
dಾ7Tಾರರು ಉಡು 3ೆ Bೋ* †ಾರ6ೆ
ಾ'Tಾಗ ತಬಸು ಇವರು ಈ :ಂTೆ
ಹಲ ಾರು ವ P0ಗ`3ೆ ಸುಳpy Bೇ` ಮದು ೆ
ಾ'8ೊಂಡು ಹಣ ಪbೆದು8ೊಂಡು oೕಸ
ಾ'ರುವlದು ಮತು0 ಇವರ Zೕ ೆ ಉಡು ಮತು0 ಇತ?ೆ ಕbೆ ಪ ಕರಣಗಳp
ವರ7dಾ*ರುವlದು D`ದುಬಂ ದMಂದ dಾ7Tಾರರು ತಮ3ೆ ಸುಳpy Bೇ` ಈ :ಂTೆ
- 18 -
ಆ*ರುವ ಮದು ೆಗಳ ಬ3ೆX ಷಯ ಮುqxಟುf ತo ಂ3ೆ ಮದು ೆ
ಾ'8ೊಂಡು oೕಸ
ಾ'ದ ಮತು0 ಹಣ Rೕಡುವಂ-ೆ )ೆದ S ಒ-ಾ0ಯ
ಾಡುD0ದMಂದ ಈ ಬ3ೆX ಘನ
. .288
$ಾ dಾಲಯದ=2 ಸ=2Sದ rಾಸ ದೂರು ?ೆಫJ ಆ ಬಂ ದMನು@ BೆV S ಇವರು
Bಾಜರುಪ'SದMನು@ S{ೕಕ S ಪ ಕರಣ Tಾಖ=S ತRrೆ 8ೈ3ೊಂ'Tೆ .”
As observed hereinabove, the police conduct investigation and file a
charge sheet in Crime No.40 of 2023. The summary of the charge
sheet as obtaining in Column No.17 is as follows:
“17.
8ೇSನ ಸಂ€ಪ0 ಾ?ಾಂಶ
: 13.01.2022 -1 .
$ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ಾ€ 1 ?ಾ•ಾಹು ೇ ರವರ ಮದು ೆಯು
-1
ಉಡು ಯ =2 ರುವ ಆ?ೋ -ೆ ತಬಸೂ ತನ@ ಮ$ೆಯ =2 ಾ€ ರವ?ೊಂ 3ೆ ಮದು ೆ
-01, 11.900
ಆ*ದುM ಮದು ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ=2 ತಬಸೂ `3ೆ ಾ€ ರವರು 3ಾ ಂ ಬಂ3ಾರದ
1 ,
ಆಭರಣಗಳ )ೆ ೆ ಅಂTಾಜು ಲt ರೂ ಾಗಳನು@ ಆ?ೋ -ೆ3ೆ Rೕ'ದುM ತದನಂತರ
-1
ಆ?ೋ -ೆಯು oೕಸ
ಾಡುವ ಉTೆMೕಶ ಂದ ಾ€ ?ಾ•ಾ ಹು ೇ ರವರ ಬ` -ಾನು
1,50,000
ಗಭ [ ಇTೆMೕ$ೆ ಎಂದು ಸುಳpy Bೇ` ಅವ ಂದ ನಗದು ಹಣ ರೂ ಗಳನು@
1 .
Bೊಸ ೇcೆಯ ಾ€ ರವರ ಮ$ೆಯ= ಪbೆದು8ೊಂ'ರು-ಾ0?ೆ Bಾಗೂ ಆ?ೋ -ೆಯು -ಾನು
-12
ಸ8ಾ ರದ ವD ಂದ ಅಲ“ಸಂrಾ ತರ ಇ ಾrೆ ಂದ ೋ 8ೊ'ಸುವlTಾ* ಾ€
-13 -14 , -15 -
ಮBೇಬೂe ಾ€ ಇ
ಾ ಾe ಾ€ †ಾಂದ ಾಷ ಾ€ •ಾಫJ ಾ€
17 - 20 -21 -22
ಆRೕ# ಾ€ ೈಯ ” ಜು$ೈ” ಾ€ ಸ$ಾ‘ಾಷು ಶ IJ ಾ€
,
ಶಪ• R@ಾ ರವ 3ೆ ನಂ S ಅವ ಂದ ಹಣ ಪbೆದು ಅವ 3ೆ ೋ 8ೊ'ಸTೇ oೕಸ
, -01 ,
ಾ'ರು-ಾ0;ೆ ಮತು0 ಈ8ೆಯು oೕಸ
ಾಡುವ ಉTೆMೕಶ ಂದ ಾ€ ?ಾ•ಾಹು ೇ
-09 , -18 , , ,
ಾ€ ಮಹ ” ರgೕ– ಾ€ ಅನ{ರ Bಾಗೂ ಅ •ಾ” ಅಪ J ಮು ಾ0–
oಹ ” ಹು ೇ ರವ?ೊಂ 3ೆ ಸಹ ಮದು ೆ ಆ* ಅವ ಂದ ಹಣವನು@ ಪbೆದು ಅವರ Zೕ ೆ
bೌ 8ೇಸು ಇ-ಾ 8ೇಸು
ಾ'ಸುವlTಾ* Bೇ` )ೆದ S ಅವ ಂದ ಹಣ
, -1 .
ಪbೆದು8ೊಂ'ರು-ಾ0;ೆ ಆ?ೋ -ೆ ಾ€ ರವ 3ೆ oೕಸ
ಾ'ರು-ಾ0;ೆ ಸದ
, ,
ಆ?ೋ -ೆಯು ಪ ಮುಖ ವ P0ಗಳನು@ ಗುರುDS ೇ# ಬು– <ೕ ನಂಬJ ಮೂಲಕ
ಅವ 3ೆ ಪ †ೇS8ೊಂಡು ನಂತರ ಅವ 3ೆ ೕDಯ ‘ಾವ$ೆ )ೆಳS ಮದು ೆ
ಾ'8ೊಂಡು
- 19 -
ಅವ ಂದ ಹಣ ಪbೆದು ಇನು@ Bೆqxನ ಹಣ8ಾL* )ೇ'8ೆ ಇಟುf8ೊಡTೆ ಇದM=2 ಅವರ Zೕ ೆ 8ೇಸು
.
ಾ'ರು-ಾ0;ೆ ಎಂದು ತRrೆ ಂದ ತRrೆ ಂದ ಧೃಢ ಪ_fರುತ0Tೆ
ಆದ 8ಾರಣ ಈ ZೕಲLಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ಅನ{ಯ ಆ?ೋ -ೆಯ ರುದ˜ ಈ Tೋ•ಾ?ೋಪಣ
ಪತ ವನು@
ಾನ $ಾ dಾಲಯದ =2 R ೇS8ೊಳy ಾ*Tೆ.”
The complaint lodged by the petitioner seeks to portray a recurring
course of conduct on the part of the complainant entering into
matrimonial alliances, developing disputes with the respective
husbands, invoking or threatening to invoke criminal proceedings
and thereafter bringing such proceedings to a close through
settlements, allegedly involving monetary consideration in certain
instances. The petitioner would contend that the recurrence of such
events cannot be viewed as a mere coincidence, but must be
examined as part of the attendant circumstances surrounding the
registration of the present crime. According to him, his marriage
was the seventh in the series, and the criminal proceedings
instituted against him constitute yet another link in what he alleges
to be a continuing chain of matrimonial litigation employed for
collateral purposes.
- 20 -
th
19. As observed hereinabove, the 8 marriage happens with
one Mohammed Mustaq. The marriage certificate is as follows:
th
9 marriage:
20. On 27-08-2023 the complainant marries for the ninth
time. The marriage certificate of the ninth time of marrying one
Gafur K.Patel is as follows:
- 21 -
The ninth husband, Gafur K. Patel, has also placed an affidavit
before this Court, alleging that the complainant threatened to
institute criminal proceedings for dowry harassment against him
and his family members, unless the monetary demands made by
her were satisfied.
21. Thus unfolds, according to the petitioner, a matrimonial
history extending across nine marriages, accompanied by repeated
- 22 -
allegations of discord, institution of proceedings and their eventual
settlement. The petitioner contends that while the earlier disputes
were brought to a close through compromise, he has chosen to
question the very foundation of the criminal proceedings instituted
against him.
22. The question that now falls for consideration is not
whether a person can marry more than once, nor whether the
institution of matrimonial proceedings by a woman who has
contracted successive marriages is, by itself, a circumstance of
suspicion. The question is, whether in the peculiar facts of the
present case, the criminal prosecution instituted against the
petitioner discloses the essential ingredients of the offences alleged,
or whether it represents an attempt to employ the criminal process
for a purpose alien to the administration of criminal justice?
23. The complaint and the summary of the charge sheet,
extracted hereinabove, must be examined in that light. On a
consideration of the allegations as presented, the petitioner
contends that they are wholly bald, omnibus and bereft of
particulars capable of constituting the offences alleged. No specific
- 23 -
act of harassment, attributable to the petitioner and satisfying the
statutory ingredients of the offences invoked, is said to emerge
from the material placed on record. The prosecution seeks to place
reliance upon statements of witnesses recorded during
investigation. The petitioner disputes their probative worth and
contends that the witnesses have merely supported the version
projected by the complainant, without furnishing any concrete
particulars of the alleged criminal conduct.
24. The criminal law cannot be permitted to become a
convenient instrument for the enforcement of private demands.
Equally, a person's matrimonial history, however unusual it may
appear, cannot by itself furnish a legal foundation for disbelieving
an allegation of criminal wrongdoing. It is the existence or absence
of the ingredients of the alleged offences, viewed in the setting of
the attendant circumstances, that must govern the exercise of
jurisdiction by this Court.
25. If the allegations in the complaint and the material
collected during investigation, even when taken at their face value,
fail to disclose the commission of the offences alleged, compelling
- 24 -
the petitioner to undergo the rigours of a criminal trial would serve
no legitimate purpose. A criminal trial is not to be permitted merely
because a complaint has been registered and a charge sheet has
followed. The process of law is intended to vindicate justice, not to
become the punishment itself.
26. In the circumstances projected in the petition, the
successive matrimonial proceedings and the settlements relied upon
by the petitioner may furnish relevant background for examining his
plea of mala fides . They cannot, however, substitute the
indispensable scrutiny of the complaint and the charge sheet. Upon
such scrutiny, if the prosecution is found to rest upon allegations
that are vague, sweeping and devoid of the essential ingredients of
the offences alleged, its continuation would amount to permitting
the machinery of criminal justice to be employed without a legally
sustainable foundation.
JUDICIAL LANDSCAPE
27. Jurisprudence is replete with observations of the Apex
Court on the increasing misuse of criminal law in minor marital
- 25 -
skirmishes through allegations under Section 498A of the IPC or
Section 85 of the BNS.
27.1. The Apex Court in DR. LOKESH B.H. v. STATE OF
1
KARNATAKA has held as follows:
“.... .... ....
Object of 498A
a. B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana , (2003) 4 SCC 675: 2003 SCC
(Cri) 848 (2 Judge Bench):
“ 14. There is no doubt that the object of
introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the
Penal Code, 1860 was to prevent torture to a woman by
her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section
498A was added with a view to punishing a
husband and his relatives who harass or torture
the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy
unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical
view would be counterproductive and would act
against interests of women and against the object
for which this provision was added. There is every
likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to
quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice
would prevent women from settling earlier. That is
not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Penal Code,
1860.”
b. Janshruti v. Union of India , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 909 (2
Judge Bench):
“5. Section 498A of the Penal Code, 1860 was, in
fact, introduced by the Legislature through the Criminal
Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983),
1
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1470
- 26 -
with effect from 25.12.1983. The enactment of this
provision was prompted by the widespread and deeply
entrenched exploitation of women through traditional
practices such as the dowry system. The Legislature
recognized the pressing need for a specific legal
provision to address the grave suffering inflicted
upon married women as a result of dowry-related
offences and cruelty, which had become a
pervasive social menace in Indian society.
6. Be that as it may, the Legislature, in its
wisdom, has continued to retain this provision
over the decades, presumably in recognition of the
persistent and deep-rooted nature of the
underlying social malaise. While it is true that
instances of misuse have emerged over time—
occasionally with the intent to harass families or
extort money, such concerns by themselves, are
rarely sufficient to warrant striking down a
statutory provision or diluting its effect. This Court
has consistently held, in a catena of decisions, that
the mere possibility or occasional misuse of a legal
provision does not render it constitutionally infirm,
either procedurally or substantively. Even in the
context of Section 498A, this Court has reiterated
that while misuse must be guarded against, the
provision cannot be trivialized or undermined
merely because it has, in some instances, been
invoked unscrupulously. However, this Court has
also cautioned that it is not to be treated as a tool
to prank assistance or as a means to ‘cry wolf’.
7. In assessing the constitutionality of such penal
provisions, it becomes imperative to strike a delicate
balance. While it is acknowledged that certain individuals
may face hardship due to the misuse of the provision, it
is equally important to look beyond these instances and
recognize that the provision serves a constitutionally
sound objective. It is aimed at protecting a vulnerable
Section of society that often requires legal support and
institutional safeguards to shield them from systemic
abuse and exploitation.”
Misuse of 498A
a. Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand , (2010) 7 SCC 667:
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473 (2 Judge Bench):
- 27 -
“32.It is a matter of common experience
that most of these complaints under Section 498A
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…..
33. The learned members of the Bar have
enormous social responsibility and obligation to
ensure that the social fibre 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 498A 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 fibre, peace and tranquillity
of the society remains intact. The members of the
Bar should also ensure that one complaint should
not lead to multiple cases.
…….
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find
out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the
innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task
in majority of these complaints. The tendency of
implicating the husband and all his immediate
relations is also not uncommon. At times, even
after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is
difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts
have to be extremely careful and cautious in
dealing with these complaints and must take
pragmatic realities into consideration while
dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of
harassment of husband's close relations who had
been living in different cities and never visited or
rarely visited the place where the complainant
resided would have an entirely different
complexion. The allegations of the complainant are
- 28 -
required to be scrutinised with great care and
circumspection.”
b. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , (2014) 8 SCC 273: (2014) 3
SCC (Cri) 449 (2 Judge Bench):
“4. There is a phenomenal increase in
matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution
of marriage is greatly revered in this country.
Section 498A IPC was introduced with avowed
object to combat the menace of harassment to a
woman at the hands of her husband and his
relatives. The fact that Section 498A IPC is a
cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a
dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that
are used as weapons rather than shield by
disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to
get the husband and his relatives arrested under
this provision. In a quite number of cases,
bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the
husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades
are arrested. “Crime in India 2012 Statistics” published
by the National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home
Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India
during the year 2012 for the offence under Section 498A
IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter
of those arrested under this provision in 2012
were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that
mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally
included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of
the total persons arrested under the crimes
committed under the Penal Code. It accounts for
4.5% of total crimes committed under different
Sections of the Penal Code, more than any other
crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of
charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A IPC
is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is
only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As
many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which
on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to
result in acquittal .”
c. Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda , (2025) 3 SCC 686: (2025) 2
SCC (Cri) 329 (2 Judge Bench):
- 29 -
“67. The provisions in the criminal law are for
the protection and empowerment of women but
sometimes are used by certain women more for
purposes that they are never meant for. In recent times,
the invocation of Sections 498A, 376, 377, 506 IPC as a
combined package in most of the complaints related to
matrimonial disputes is a practice which has been
condemned by this Court on several occasions. In
certain cases, the wife and her family tend to use
a criminal complaint with all the above serious
offences as a platform for negotiation and as a
mechanism and a tool to get the husband and his
family to comply with their demands, which are
mostly monetary in nature. Sometimes this is done
in a fit of rage after a marital dispute, while at
times it is a planned strategy in other cases.
Unfortunately, it is not just the parties who are
involved in this abuse of the process of law. They
are understandably fuelled by the emotions of the
situation. But other stakeholders also worsen the
situation as they may often devise such crafty
strategies for the women to adopt such arm-
twisting tactics for their ulterior motives. Further,
the police personnel are sometimes quick to jump
into action in selective cases and arrest the
husband or even their relatives including aged and
bedridden parents and grandparents of the
husband. The trial courts are hesitant in granting
bail to the accused persons being swayed by the
“gravity of the offences” mentioned in the FIR.
The collective effect of this chain of events is often
overlooked by the actual individual players
involved therein, which is that even minor
disputes between husband and wife tend to
snowball into ugly prodigious battles of ego and
reputation and washing dirty linen in public,
eventually leading to the relationship turning sour
to the extent that there remains no possibility of a
reconciliation or cohabitation . The women need to be
careful about the fact that these strict provisions of law
in their hands are beneficial legislations for their welfare
and not means to chastise, threaten, domineer or extort
from their husbands.”
d. Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana , (2025) 3 SCC
735: (2025) 2 SCC (Cri) 370 (2 Judge Bench):
- 30 -
“30. The inclusion of Section 498A 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 marriage, consequently,
there has been a growing tendency to misuse
provisions like Section 498A 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 498A 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. ”
e. Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana , (2025) 3 SCC 756: (2025)
2 SCC (Cri) 387 (2 Judge Bench):
“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
- 31 -
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 ….”
f. Rajesh Chaddha v. State of U.P. , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1094
(2 Judge Bench):
“ 13. Notwithstanding the merits of the case, we
are distressed with the manner, the offences under
Section 498A IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act,
1961 are being maliciously roped in by Complainant
wives, insofar as aged parents, distant relatives, married
sisters living separately, are arrayed as accused, in
matrimonial matters. This growing tendency to
append every relative of the husband, casts
serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations
made by the Complainant wife or her family
members, and vitiates the very objective of a
protective legislation …”
…. …. ….
9. Keeping the judicial development of the Section in
view, as captured above, we now deal with the appellant's
contention that Section 498A being a penal provision has to be
interpreted strictly, confined only to a husband married to a
woman in the traditional sense. This contention is rejected. The
purpose of penalising cruelty by a husband and his
relatives was to introduce a factor of deterrence against
the reprehensible behaviour that was exhibited by such
family members toward a married woman, which was not
addressed by the existing laws at the time. The objective,
quite obviously, was reformative, cloaked with
punishment. Since the provision was aimed at solving a
societal issue, it is this larger objective of securing
equality for women, stepping away from the superiority
of males that is an inheritance from bygone days, that
- 32 -
has to inform the understanding in interpretation and
implementation of the Section. Given this purpose,
implementation necessarily has to be not
literal/conservative or technical but instead informed
and aware of the objective. So, while it is true that penal
statutes have to receive strict construction, the light of
that principle cannot dim the objective of one part of the
statute. It has also to be understood that forty-three
years ago, when this provision was introduced in 1983,
there were only two laws dealing specifically with
domestic cruelty. One being the general law of the IPC
and the other , the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Hence,
short of introducing entirely new legislation, this one
Section, as an option, it appears, in the hands of the
legislative branch was duly exercised. ”
27.2. The Apex Court further interprets what cruelty under
Section 498A of the IPC should consist of in PRASANTA KUMAR
2
DHAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL , holding as follows:
“ .... .... ....
16. Though the aforesaid broad principles laid down in
Bhajan Lal would be the guidelines, this Court has to also keep
in mind the peculiar nature of a criminal case which arises
essentially out of a domestic dispute. In this regard, one may
also refer to the decision of this Court in Arti Mehta v. State of
Madhya Pradesh , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 933, which specifically
pertains to proceedings out of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 1961.
“14. ….However, mere filing of the charge-sheet
or pendency of proceedings under the DV Act would not
by itself preclude this Court from interfering with the
criminal proceedings, if upon examination of the FIR, the
2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 2061
- 33 -
DV complaint and the material collected during
investigation, it is found that no prima facie case is
made out against the present appellants and that
continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse
of the process of law.
XXXXX XXX
43. However, while safeguarding the rights
and dignity of victims of domestic violence
remains of paramount importance, courts are
simultaneously required to ensure that the rigours
of criminal law are not indiscriminately extended
to every member of the family without a clear
factual foundation. In prosecutions arising out of
matrimonial disputes, the allegations against each
accused must be specific, distinct and supported
by prima facie material indicating active
involvement in the alleged acts of cruelty,
harassment or unlawful demand of dowry. …
XXXXXXXX
44. It must therefore be emphasised that
each case arising out of matrimonial discord or
allegations of domestic violence must necessarily
turn on its own peculiar facts and the nature of
allegations levelled against the accused
concerned. The observations made herein should
not be construed to mean that relatives of the
husband can never be prosecuted under the
relevant penal provisions. Where the material on
record discloses specific overt acts, active
participation, or direct involvement in perpetrating
cruelty, harassment or domestic violence, such
relatives would undoubtedly be liable to face
prosecution in accordance with the law. What the
Court is required to carefully examine is whether
the allegations are genuine, specific and supported
by foundational facts, or whether they are merely
a consequence of matrimonial acrimony resulting
in sweeping and omnibus implication of all family
members. In the absence of such specific
allegations and prima facie material, continuation
of criminal proceedings against such relatives
would amount to abuse of the process of law. …”
- 34 -
17. Therefore, in view of the peculiarities of
criminal cases arising out of domestic disputes, this Court
has highlighted the need for a nuanced approach and to
be circumspect when applying stringent criminal
principles to domestic disputes. In that context, this
Court has made the following observations in Geddam
Jhansi v. State of Telangana , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263:
“31. Invoking criminal process is a serious
matter with penal consequences involving coercive
measures, which can be permitted only when
specific act(s) which constitute offences
punishable under the penal code or any other
penal statute are alleged or attributed to the
accused and a prima facie case is made out. It
applies with equal force when criminal laws are
invoked in domestic disputes. Criminalising
domestic disputes without specific allegations and
credible materials to support the same may have
disastrous consequences for the institution of
family, which is built on the premise of love,
affection, cordiality and mutual trust. Institution
of family constitutes the core of human society.
Domestic relationships, such as those between
family members, are guided by deeply ingrained
social values and cultural expectations. These
relationships are often viewed as sacred,
demanding a higher level of respect, commitment,
and emotional investment compared to other
social or professional associations. For the
aforesaid reason, preservation of family
relationship has always been emphasised upon.
Thus, when family relationships are sought to be
brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings
rupturing the family bond, courts should be
circumspect and judicious, and should allow
invocation of criminal process only when there are
specific allegations with supporting materials
which clearly constitute criminal offences .”
18. The chargesheet filed mentions the offences under
Sections 498A, 406, 506, 323 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the
DP Act. The charge under Section 323 IPC was quashed by the
High Court and the remaining charges survived. We, therefore,
- 35 -
must examine each section to see if prima facie materials exist
corresponding to each of the offences.
19. Cruelty under Section 498A IPC would consist
of either:
(a) Any wilful conduct that
i. is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide,
or
ii. cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb,
or health (whether mental or physical); or
(b) Harassment
i. to coerce her or any persons related to her to
meet any unlawful demand for property or
valuable security, or
ii. harassment on account of failure to meet
such demand.”
The unmistakable principle emerging from these pronouncements is
that every matrimonial disagreement, domestic altercation,
ordinary wear and tear of married life or even conduct constituting
cruelty for the purposes of matrimonial relief does not, ipso facto ,
constitute criminal cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC. The
conduct, complained of, must answer the statutory description of
cruelty: it must either be of such gravity as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her
life, limb or health, whether mental or physical, or constitute
- 36 -
harassment intended to coerce compliance with an unlawful
demand for property or valuable security. The gravity of the
conduct, its nature, persistence and proximity to the complaint
assume significance in determining whether the statutory threshold
stands crossed.
28. The Apex Court sounded a note of caution against the
growing tendency to convert matrimonial discord into sweeping
criminal accusations, implicating the husband and his entire family,
sometimes with the object of extracting monetary settlements or
settling personal scores. The protective armour of law, the Apex
Court cautions, cannot be transformed into an instrument of
intimidation, vengeance or extortion. Thus, the law draws a delicate
but unmistakable distinction between genuine matrimonial cruelty
deserving the stern intervention of criminal law and the invocation
of criminal law as a weapon in the aftermath of matrimonial
discord. The former must receive the fullest protection of the
statute; the latter must be subjected to searching judicial scrutiny.
A legislation conceived as a shield for the vulnerable cannot
- 37 -
be permitted to become a sword in the hands of those who
seek to employ it for purposes alien to its legislative object .
29. This is also considered by the Apex Court in DARA
3
LAKSHMI NARAYANA v. STATE OF TELANGANA ,which
observes as follows:
“.... .... ....
30. The inclusion of Section 498-AIPC by way of an
amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a
woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift
intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as
there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes
across the country, accompanied by growing discord and
tension within the institution of marriage, consequently,
there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions
like Section 498-AIPC as a tool for unleashing personal
vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife.
Making vague and generalised allegations during
matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will lead to the
misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use
of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family.
Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-AIPC
against the husband and his family in order to seek
compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife.
Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned
against prosecuting the husband and his family in the
absence of a clear prima facie case against them.
31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman
who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been
contemplated under Section 498-AIPC should remain silent and
forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any
criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid
3
(2025) 3 SCC 735
- 38 -
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-
AIPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said
provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is
subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to
an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the
form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the
present case.
32. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.
Prasad [ G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad , (2000) 3 SCC 693: 2000
SCC (Cri) 733] observed as follows: (SCC p. 698, para 12)
“ 12 . There has been an outburst of matrimonial
disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony,
the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple
to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which
often assume serious proportions resulting in
commission of heinous crimes in which elders of
the family are also involved with the result that
those who could have counselled and brought
about rapprochement are rendered helpless on
their being arrayed as accused in the criminal
case. There are many other reasons which need
not be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may
ponder over their defaults and terminate their
disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it takes
years and years to conclude and in that process
the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their
“cases” in different courts. ”
33. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand [ Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand , (2010) 7
SCC 667: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] held that the courts
have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with
these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment by the husband's close
relatives who had been living in different cities and never
- 39 -
visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant
resided would have an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complainant are required to be
scrutinised with great care and circumspection. ”
What emerges is that the mere use of the expressions
'cruelty', 'harassment' or 'dowry demand' cannot, by the
magic of nomenclature, constitute an offence under Section
498A of the IPC. The complaint must disclose the factual
foundation upon which the statutory ingredients can
reasonably be inferred. Criminal culpability cannot rest upon
adjectives bereft of particulars. The law requires allegations
of conduct, not merely conclusions about conduct.
30. The other offence alleged against the petitioner is the
ones punishable under Section 323 of the IPC. Section 323 IPC is
interpreted by the Apex Court in USHA CHAKRABORTY v. STATE
4
OF WEST BENGAL as follows:
“.... .... ....
14. The basic requirements/ingredients to bring home
the accusations under the alleged offences are hereunder:
4
(2023) 15 SCC 135
- 40 -
14.1. Offence punishable under Section 323 IPC:
( i ) Causation of hurt by another person;
( ii ) that he caused such hurt voluntarily;
( iii ) that such a case is not covered under Section
334 IPC.”
If what the Apex Court considers to be ingredients of the said
offence, even offence under Section 323 is lacking in the case at
hand.
31. When the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet
in the case at hand are tested on the aforesaid touchstone, what
emerges is a conspicuous absence of the foundational ingredients
necessary to constitute an offence under Sections 498A and 323 of
the IPC. The allegations, as noticed hereinabove, are sweeping and
omnibus, without disclosing specific acts of such gravity, as would
attract either limb of the statutory definition of cruelty. The mere
existence of matrimonial discord between the petitioner and the
complainant cannot, in the absence of the requisite factual
foundation, be elevated into criminal cruelty. In such
circumstances, whether the power under Section 482 of the CrPC or
528 of the BNSS should be exercised or otherwise is also
- 41 -
considered by the Apex Court in SAJAL BOSE v. STATE OF WEST
5
BENGAL holding as follows:
“…. …. ….
23. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, it is
evident that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
under Section 482 of CrPC is intended to be exercised,
inter alia , where the allegations made in the FIR, even if
taken at their face value, do not prima facie constitute
any offence, or where the uncontroverted allegations and
the material collected fail to disclose the commission of
an offence, or where the criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with malafide and instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. The categories
illustratively enumerated in paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal
(supra) serve as guiding principles to prevent abuse of
the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
Tested on the anvil of these settled parameters, it becomes
necessary to examine whether the allegations in the present
case, read as they stand along with the material on record
including the CCTV footage, disclose the essential ingredients of
the offences alleged against the appellants, or whether the
continuation of proceedings qua them would amount to
permitting the criminal process to be used as an instrument of
harassment.
…. …. ….
29. We are further constrained to note that by the very
same impugned judgment, and on the basis of the same set of
allegations arising out of the same FIR and chargesheet, the
High Court proceeded to quash the criminal proceedings against
two of the co-accused, while declining similar relief to the
appellants. The impugned judgment does not disclose any
cogent or discernible reasoning for drawing such a
distinction, particularly when the allegations stem from a
common incident and are founded on substantially similar
5
2026 SCC OnLine SC 525
- 42 -
assertions. In the absence of a clear rationale justifying
differential treatment, the approach adopted by the High
Court is legally and factually unsustainable.
…. …. ….
31. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon a
cumulative consideration of the allegations in the FIR,
the material collected during investigation, and the
evidence placed before us, we are of the considered
opinion that the present case falls squarely within the
illustrative categories (1), (3) and (7) enumerated in
paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal (supra). Even if the
allegations in the FIR and the material collected during
investigation are taken at their face value and accepted
in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute the
necessary ingredients of offences alleged against the
appellants . Further, the uncontroverted material available
on record, to be specific, the CCTV footage, completely
belies the allegation of their participation in the alleged
offences so as to justify their being put to trial.
Additionally, the attendant circumstances, particularly
the admitted pre-existing disputes between the parties
and the absence of specific and distinct overt acts
attributed to the appellants, lend substance to their
contention that the criminal proceedings are manifestly
attended with malafide and have been initiated with an
ulterior motive. In such circumstances, permitting the
continuation of prosecution of the appellants would not
advance the cause of justice but would instead amount to
an abuse of the process of law.
32. Recently, this Court in Pradeep Kumar
Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh , revisited and further
elucidated the parameters governing the exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. While
drawing guidance from earlier precedents, this Court
delineated a structured four-step test to assess the
sustainability of a prayer for quashing criminal
proceedings. The said decision underscores that where
the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and
impeccable quality; is sufficient to negate the allegations
in the complaint; remains unrefuted or incapable of
- 43 -
justifiable refutation by the prosecution; and where
continuation of the proceedings would amount to an
abuse of the process of Court and not serve the ends of
justice, the High Court would be justified in exercising its
inherent powers to quash the proceedings . For ready
reference, the relevant observations from the said judgment are
reproduced hereinbelow:—
“20. The following steps should ordinarily
determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing,
raised by an accused by invoking the power vested
in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.
P.C.:-
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon
by the accused is sound, reasonable, and
indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling
and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon
by the accused, would rule out the
assertions contained in the charges levelled
against the accused, i.e., the material is
sufficient to reject and overrule the factual
assertions contained in the complaint, i.e.,
the material is such, as would persuade a
reasonable person to dismiss and condemn
the factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon
by the accused, has not been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the
material is such, that it cannot be justifiably
refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial
would result in an abuse of process of the
court, and would not serve the ends of
justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the
affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court
should persuade it to quash such criminal
proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it
under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Such exercise of
power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save
- 44 -
precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in
holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising
therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same
would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.
[(See: Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor
(Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]”
[Emphasis supplied]”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
The Apex Court in SAJAL BOSE supra referring to PRADEEP
KUMAR KESARWANI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [ 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1947] and the principles emanating from RAJIV
THAPAR v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR [ 2013 SCC OnLine SC 83], has
reiterated the fourfold test governing the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction where the accused relies upon material to seek
quashment of criminal proceedings.
32. The Court must examine whether the material
relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable
quality; whether such material is sufficient to displace the
factual foundation of the accusations; whether the material
remains unrefuted or is incapable of justifiable refutation by
the complainant or prosecution; and whether continuation of
the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the
- 45 -
process of the Court rather than advancement of the ends of
justice.
33. Where all these considerations converge in favour of the
accused, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent
jurisdiction to terminate the prosecution. The object of such
intervention is not to undertake a premature trial or adjudicate
disputed questions of fact, but to prevent the criminal process from
being employed, where its continuation is demonstrably unjustified.
34. The above-mentioned principle is of particular significance
in the present case. The petitioner has placed on record marriage
certificates, particulars of earlier criminal proceedings, documents
relating to settlements and an affidavit attributed to the ninth
husband of the complainant. The legal consequence of these
documents must depend upon their authenticity, their relevance to
the accusations in the present proceedings and the extent to which
they are undisputed. Nevertheless, the complaint and the charge
sheet must independently withstand scrutiny on the touchstone of
the ingredients of the offences alleged.
- 46 -
35. On a cumulative consideration of the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgments, when juxtaposed with
the peculiar and rather extraordinary facts obtaining in the case at
hand, what emerges is a circumstance that calls for close judicial
scrutiny. The petitioner is not merely questioning the registration of
a solitary matrimonial complaint. He has placed before the Court a
series of documents purporting to establish that the complainant
entered into successive matrimonial alliances, nine in number, with
several of those relationships becoming the subject matter of
criminal or matrimonial proceedings, followed by settlements.
36. The sequence, as projected by the petitioner, is striking.
One marriage follows another; matrimonial discord is followed by
litigation; litigation, in several instances, is followed by settlement;
and the matrimonial journey thereafter proceeds to yet another
alliance. The petitioner contends that this recurring course of
conduct is not an accidental concatenation of matrimonial
misfortunes, but discloses a pattern in which the criminal process is
allegedly employed to secure monetary advantage.
- 47 -
37. This Court is conscious that the number of marriages
contracted by a person cannot, by itself, constitute an indictment of
character or furnish a presumption of criminal misconduct. Nor can
the institution of criminal proceedings by a woman against her
former husbands, without more, render a subsequent complaint
unworthy of consideration. Every complaint must stand or fall upon
its own allegations and the material supporting them. The past
conduct relied upon by the petitioner may provide context, but
cannot replace the statutory requirement of examining whether the
offences alleged are prima facie disclosed.
38. It is here that the complaint and the charge sheet assume
decisive significance. The prosecution must disclose material
satisfying the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498A, 323,
504 and 506 of the IPC. On the assessment of the material as
narrated hereinabove, the allegations appear to be bald and
omnibus, without the specific factual foundation necessary to
sustain the prosecution. No conduct satisfying the statutory
definition of cruelty under Section 498A, no particularized voluntary
infliction of hurt under Section 323, and no specific factual
- 48 -
foundation establishing intentional insult or criminal intimidation
under Sections 504 and 506, respectively, is discernible from the
allegations as presented.
39. The filing of a charge sheet cannot breathe life into
an accusation which, even upon acceptance at its face value,
fails to disclose the essential ingredients of a criminal
offence. Investigation may collect evidence in support of an
allegation; it cannot dispense with the necessity of an
allegation disclosing criminality in the first place.
40. The circumstances surrounding the institution of the
present proceedings, when considered along with the allegations in
the complaint, lend significance to the petitioner's contention that
the prosecution has been initiated for a collateral purpose. It is not
the matrimonial history alone that would justify interference. It is
the alleged absence of the essential ingredients of the offences,
read with the attendant circumstances, that brings the matter
within the principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
- 49 -
41. In the considered view of this Court, permitting the
proceedings in C.C.No.2125 of 2023 to continue, notwithstanding
the absence of the foundational ingredients of the offences alleged,
would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in a
miscarriage of justice. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is therefore required to be exercised to
secure the ends of justice.
42. Thus ends, for the purposes of the present
proceedings, the judicial examination of the extraordinary
matrimonial narrative placed before this Court. The law must
have the last word, not the accusation; justice must prevail,
not the process employed in its name.
43. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
O R D E R
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed .
(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.2125 of 2023 pending before the
II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief
- 50 -
Judicial Magistrate, Udupi arising out of Crime No.57 of
2022 stand quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
BKP