MR VIDYASHREE N vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
TH
DATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10716 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MRS. VIDYASHREE N,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
W/O ASHRAY SIDDAIAH,
PERMANENT ADDRESS,
RUE CYPRIEN MERJAI 2145,
LUXEMBOURG.
TEMPORARY ADDRESS,
R/AT NO.208,
TH ST
10 CROSS, 1 STAGE,
BEML LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 079
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI ANAND K, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by PADMAVATHI
B K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. SMT. LAVANYA U.M,
W/O. RAKESH N,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT NO 47, 2ND CROSS,
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
VASANTHA VALLABHA NAGAR,
VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU 560061.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI B SIDDESHWAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C TO QUASH THE FIR
IN CRIME NO. 377/2024, PENDING BEFORE 30TH ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CMM COURT, BENGALURU,
REGISTERED BY THE R1 SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE ON THE
COMPLAINT FILED BY THE R2 AGAINST THIS PETITIONER FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE SECTIONS 498(A), 312, 504, 506
OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT,
BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner – accused No.4 is before the Court calling in
question registration of a crime in Crime No.377/2024, for the
offences under Sections 498A, 312, 504 and 506 of the IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, now pending
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
th
before the 30 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, CMM
Court, Bengaluru.
2. Heard Sri Anand K., learned counsel for petitioner,
Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 and Sri B. Siddeshwar, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The petitioner is drawn as accused No.4. She is the
sister-in-law of respondent No.2 - complainant. Respondent
No.2 is the wife of accused No.1, the daughter in-law of
accused Nos.2 and 3. Accused No.1 gets married to the
complainant on 23.07.2022. A year or so, thereafter, it
transpires that the relationship between accused No.1 and the
complainant flounders. On foundering of the relationship,
several proceedings spring by the wife against the husband or
the husband against the wife, as a case would be. A complaint
then comes to be registered before the jurisdictional police
against the four accused. Accused No.1 is the husband,
accused No.2 is the mother in-law and accused No.3 is the
father in-law and accused No.4 is the sister in-law, the
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
petitioner. Filing of the complaint has driven the petitioner to
this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that accused No.4 is the sister in-law who stays in
Luxemburg and not even an iota of allegation can be laid
against the petitioner. The petitioner gets married in the year
2017, long before the subject wedding and flies to Luxemburg,
where she stays even today. Therefore, the petitioner is
without rhyme or reason, drawn into the web of the
proceedings.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
contend that there are allegations against the petitioner as
well. She may not be present in India or with the family, but
over the phone has always tortured the complainant.
Therefore, it is a matter of investigation against the petitioner
for the aforesaid offences, as the ingredients of the offences
are clearly met in the case at hand.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
the State would also submit that it is a matter of investigation
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
in the least, as the complaint points certain allegations against
the petitioner at certain point.
7. This Court in the year 2024 had granted an interim
order of stay of the investigation and therefore, no charge
sheet is drawn against the present petitioner, while the trial is
said to be continuing against the other accused.
8. I have given by anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and have perused the material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The
relationship between the petitioner and the complainant is as
narrated hereinabove. The complaint which is registered on
27.09.2024, so far it concerns the petitioner reads as follows:
“xxxxxxxxx
ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ತವರು ತವರು ತವರು ತವರು ಮೆ
ಂದ ಮೆ
ಂದ ಮ ಮೆ
ಂದ ೆ
ಂದ ವರದ ೆಾ ವರದ ೆಾ ವರದ ವರದ ೆಾ ೆಾ ೆನ ೆನ ೆನ ೆನ
²æÃ
ಹಣ ಹಣ ಹಣ ಹಣ ತರಲ ತರಲ ತರ ತರಲ ಲ ಎಂಬ ಎಂಬ ಎಂಬ ಎಂಬ ಾರಣೆ ಾರಣೆ ಾರಣೆ ಾರಣೆ ನನ ನು ನನ ನು ನನ ನನ ನು ನು ಕು ತು ಕು ತು ಕು ಕು ತು ತು ಅಲ!ೆ ಅಲ!ೆ ಅಲ ಅಲ!ೆ !ೆ ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ ಾ"# ಾ"# ಾ"# ಾ"# $!ಾ% $!ಾ% $!ಾ% $!ಾ%
- ,
ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ನಮ& ನಮ& ನಮ& ನಮ& ಅ'ೆ( ಅ'ೆ( ಅ'ೆ( ಅ'ೆ( )ಾವ )ಾವ )ಾವ )ಾವ ರವ ೆ ರವ ೆ ರವ ರವ ೆ ೆ ಪ,-"ನ ಪ,-"ನ ಪ,-"ನ ಪ,-"ನ ಕ.ೆ ಕ.ೆ ಕ.ೆ ಕ.ೆ )ಾ/ )ಾ/ )ಾ/ )ಾ/ )ಾತಾಡು1ಾಗ )ಾತಾಡು1ಾಗ )ಾತ )ಾತಾಡು1ಾಗ ಾಡು1ಾಗ
. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ²æÃ
ನೊ ಂ"ಗೂ ನೊ ಂ"ಗೂ ನ ನೊ ಂ"ಗೂ ೊ ಂ"ಗೂ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ )ಾತಾ/ದು5 )ಾತಾ/ದು5 )ಾತ )ಾತಾ/ದು5 ಾ/ದು5 $!ಾ% $!ಾ% $!ಾ% $!ಾ% ರವರು ರವರು ನನೆ ರವರು ರವರು ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ
ೆನ ೆನ ೆನ ೆನ ವರದ ೆ ವರದ ೆ ವರದ ವರದ ೆ ೆ ಹಣವನು ಹಣವನು ಹಣವನು ಹಣವನು ತರುವಂ'ೆ ರುವಂ'ೆ ರುವಂ'ೆ ರುವಂ'ೆ ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು 1ೇ9ೆ 1ೇ9ೆ 1ೇ9ೆ 1ೇ9ೆ ತರ!ೇ ತರ!ೇ ತರ!ೇ ತರ!ೇ ೋದ ೋದ ೋದ ೋದ #ೕನು #ೕನು #ೕನು #ೕನು
ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ ತಮ&ೊಂ"ೆ ತಮ&ೊಂ"ೆ ತಮ& ತಮ&ೊಂ"ೆ ೊಂ"ೆ ೇೆ ೇೆ ೇೆ ೇೆ :ೕವನ :ೕವನ :ೕವನ :ೕವನ ನ;ೆಸು-(ೕಾ ನ;ೆಸು-(ೕಾ ನ;ೆಸು-(ೕ ನ;ೆಸು-(ೕಾ ಾ ೋಡು'ೆ(ೕೆ ೋಡು'ೆ(ೕೆ ೋಡು'ೆ(ೕೆ ೋಡು'ೆ(ೕೆ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಪ,-ೕ ಪ,-ೕ ಪ,-ೕ ಪ,-ೕ
- .
"ನ "ನ "ನ "ನ ನಮ& ನಮ& ನಮ& ನಮ& ಅ'ೆ( ಅ'ೆ( ಅ'ೆ( ಅ'ೆ( )ಾದ ೆ )ಾದ ೆ )ಾದ )ಾದ ೆ ೆ ಕ.ೆ)ಾ/!ಾಗ ಕ.ೆ)ಾ/!ಾಗ ಕ.ೆ)ಾ/!ಾಗ ಕ.ೆ)ಾ/!ಾಗ ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನೆ <ೆದ = <ೆದ = <ೆದ <ೆದ = = >ಂ=ಸು-(ದ5ರು >ಂ=ಸು-(ದ5ರು >ಂ=ಸು-(ದ5ರು >ಂ=ಸು-(ದ5ರು
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ೆನ ೆನ ವರದ ೆ ವರದ ೆ ಹಣ ಹಣ 'ೆೆದುೊಂಡು 'ೆೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬರ<ೇಕು ಬರ<ೇಕು ಇ@ಾ ಇ@ಾ ಅಂ!ೆ, ಅಂ!ೆ, #ೕನು #ೕನು
ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ೆನ ೆನ ವರದ ೆ ವರದ ೆ ಹಣ ಹಣ 'ೆೆದುೊಂಡು 'ೆೆದುೊಂಡು ಬರ<ೇಕು ಬರ<ೇಕು ಇ@ಾ ಇ@ಾ ಅಂ!ೆ, ಅಂ!ೆ, #ೕನು #ೕನು
.
ಮೆ ಮೆ ಮ ಮೆ ೆ AಟುC AಟುC AಟುC AಟುC 'ೊಲಗ<ೇಕು 'ೊಲಗ<ೇಕು 'ೊಲಗ<ೇಕು 'ೊಲಗ<ೇಕು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ೆದ ಸು ೆದ ಸು-(ದ5ಳE ೆದ ಸು ೆದ ಸು -(ದ5ಳE -(ದ5ಳE -(ದ5ಳE
ನಂತರ ನಮ& ಅ'ೆ( ಾನು ತವರು ಮ ೆ
ಂದ ೆನ ಹಣ ವರದ ೆ
'
ತಂದು ೊಡಲ ಎಂಬ ಾರಣೆ ನನ ನು ಕು ತು ನನ ಮಗಳE $!ಾ%F,ೕ*ೆ
7
ಮದು1ೆ ಾ ವಷH ಆದರೂ ಮಕ 9ಾಲ #ನಗೂ ಮಕ 9ಾಗದಂ'ೆ
.
)ಾಡು'ೆ(ೕ ೆ ೋಡು ಎಂದು <ೈದು <ೆದ = ನನ ಗಂಡ#*ೆ ಕುಮ&ಕು #ೕ/
ನನ ಗಂಡ ನನ*ೆ ಗಭHLಾತ1ಾಗುವ )ಾ'ೆ,ಯನು ತಂದು ಬಲವಂತ1ಾ
.
ನನೆ ನುಂ =ದರು ನಂತರ ನನ ಗಂಡ ನ ೊ ಂ"ೆ ಸ ಾ ಸಂNಾರ
.
)ಾಡದ ಾ*ೇ )ಾ/ >ಂ=ಸು-(ದ5ರು ನನ ಗಂಡ ಮದು1ೆ ಾದ ನಂತರ
,
ನನ ನು ತವರು ಮ ೆಾಗೕ ಅಥ1ಾ ಾವP!ೇ ಾಯHಕ,ಮಗQಾಗ
!ೇವNಾRನಗQ*ಾಗ ಎ ಯೂ ಕ.ೆದು ೊಂಡು ೋಗ!ೆ #ೕನು ಸೂ9ೆ
ಾರೊ ೕ ಇಟುC ೊಂ/"5ೕಾ ಅದ ೆ #ೕನು ಾನು ೇQದ )ಾತು
.
ೇಳE-(@ಾ ಎಂದು ಅ1ಾಚ% ಶಬ5ಗQಂದ <ೈಯು5 >ಂ=ಸು-(ದ5ರು ಅಲ !ೆ ನನ
- '
ಅ'ೆ( )ಾವ ನನ ನು ಕು ತು ನನ ಮಗ#*ೆ #ನ ನು AಟುC <ೇ.ೆ
ಾರಾ ದರೂ ಹಣ ಇರುವವರನು ಮದು1ೆ )ಾ/=ದ5.ೆ
.
ೋUಾ%VೕಶWರಾರು-(ದ5 ಎಂದು > ಾ%Qಸು-(ದ5ರು ಈ $Yಾರವನು ಾನು
-
ನಮ& ತವರು ಮ ೆಯವ *ೆ ಅಂದ.ೆ ನಮ& ತಂ!ೆ 'ಾ
ಾಗೂ ಅಣZ
ಶFಕು)ಾ[ ಾಗೂ ತಂ \, ಾರವ *ೆ -Q=!ಾಗ ಹಲ1ಾರು <ಾ
-
.ಾ:ೕ ಪಂYಾ
- )ಾ/ ಾವP ೆಣುZ ೆತ(ವರು #ೕ ೆ ಸWಲ] ೊಂ!ಾ^ೆ
.
)ಾ/ ೊಂಡು ೋಗು ಎಂದು ಬು"51ಾದ ೇQ ಕಳE>ಸು-(ದ5ರು ಆಗ ಾನು
ನಮ& ತವರು ಮ ೆಯ ಮ ಾH!ೆ ೋಗುತ(!ೆ ಎಂದು ಈ ಬ*ೆ_ ಎಲ ಯೂ
ವರದ ೆ `ರುಕುಳದ ಪ,ಕರಣವನು !ಾಖ ಸ!ೆ ೊಂ!ಾ^ೆ )ಾ/ ೊಂಡು
. 4
:ೕವನ ನ;ೆಸು-(!ೆ5ನು ಈ ರು1ಾೆ_ ಈೆ_ ಸು)ಾರು -ಂಗಳ >ಂ!ೆ ನನ
-
ಗಂಡ ಮತು( ಅ'ೆ( )ಾವ ನನ ನು ೆನ ವರದ ೆ ಹಣ ಾಗೂ ಾರನು
.
'ೆ*ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಆರುವಂ'ೆ ಮ ೆ AಟುC ಓ/=ದರು ನಂತರ ಾನು ನನ
ಗಂಡ#*ೆ ಹಲ1ಾರು <ಾ ಕ.ೆ )ಾ/ ನನ ನು ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ
,
ೋಗುವಂ'ೆ ೇQೊಂಡರೂ ಸಹ <ೇ.ೆ ಮ ೆ )ಾಡು'ೆ(ೕ ೆ ಾ@ಾವಾಶ
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
PÉÆqÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛ PÉÆ£ÉUÉ DUÀ-FUÀ ªÀÄ£É )ಾಡು'ೆ(ೕ ೆ JAzÀÄ
ಸಬೂಬು ೇQೊಂಡು ನನ c<ೈ ¯ï £ÀA§gï C£ÀÄß ¨ÁèPï ªÀiÁr
. :- 02-07-2024
ಅಂ"#ಂದ ನನ ಸಂಪಕH ೆ =ಗ ಲ ಈ ರು1ಾ*ೆ_ " ಾಂಕ
-
ರಂದು ಾನು ನಮ& ತಂ!ೆ 'ಾ
ಾಗೂ > dಂ"*ೆ ನಮ& ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆ
-
ಬQ ೋ!ಾಗ ನನ ಗಂಡ ಅ'ೆ( )ಾವರು ನಮ&ನು ಮ ೆ ಒಳಗ;ೆ*ೆ ೋಗಲು
2
ಅವ ಾಶ )ಾ/ ೊಡ!ೆ !ಾ ಯ # = ಸುಮರು ಗಂUೆಗಳ ಾಲ .ಾ:ೕ
ಪಂYಾ
- )ಾ/ ೆನ ವರದ ೆ ಹಣವನು ತರುವವ.ೆಗೂ ನನ ನು ಮ ೆ*ೆ
10-15
Nೇ =ೊಳEeವP"ಲ ಎಂದು ೇQ ಅವರ ಕ;ೆಯ ಸು)ಾರು ಜನ
.
ಗೂಂ;ಾಗಳನು ಕ.ೆ
= <ೆದ = ಕಳE>=ರು'ಾ(.ೆ ನಂತರ ಾವP ಅಲ ಂದ
:-03-07-2024
1ಾಪg ಬಂ!ಾಗ ಏ ಾಏ` ನಮ& ಅ'ೆ(ಯವರು " ಾಂಕ
.
ರಂದು ತುಮಕೂರು ನಗರದ ಜಯನಗರ i ೕg jಾ ೆಯ ನನ ನನ ತಂ!ೆ
.
ಾಗೂ ನನ ಅಣZನ $ರುದk ಸುಳEe <ೆದ ೆ ದೂರು !ಾಖ =ದು5 ಈ ೇ=ನ
.
ನಮ&ನು ಕ.ೆದು ೇQೆ ಪ;ೆದು ೊಂಡು ೇಸನು ಮು ಾ(ಯ )ಾ/ರು'ಾ(.ೆ ಈ
-
ೇಸನು ಮು ಾ(ಯ )ಾ/ ೊಂಡ ಸಮಯದ ನನ ಗಂಡ ಮತು( ಅ'ೆ(
)ಾವಂ"ರು ನನ ನು ಅವರ ಮ ೆ*ೆ ಕ.ೆದು ೊಂಡು ೋಗು'ೆ(ೕ1ೆ ಎಂದು
,
ೇQದರು ಆ ಾರಣಾ ಇ ವ.ೆಗೂ ಾನು ದೂರು #ೕಡ!ೇ ಸುಮ&#ದು5 ಈ
.
"ನ ತಡ1ಾ ಬಂದು ದೂರು #ೕ/ರು'ೆ(ೕ ೆ
,
ಆದ5 ಂದ ನನ*ೆ ೆನ ವರದ ೆ ತರುವಂ'ೆ ಒ'ಾ(ಯ )ಾ/
!ೈ>ಕ ಾಗೂ )ಾನ=ಕ1ಾ `ರುಕುಳ ೊlCರುವ ಾಗು ನನ*ೆ
,
ಬಲವಂತ1ಾ ಗಬHLಾತ )ಾ/=ರುವ ಮತು( ಅ1ಾಚ% ಶಬ5ಗQಂದ <ೈಯು5
. ,
!ೈ>ಕ ಾಗೂ )ಾನ=ಕ1ಾ >ಂNೆ #ೕ/ರುವ ನನ ಗಂಡ .ಾ ೇm ಎn
,
ಅ'ೆ( ಸು#ೕ'ಾ ಮೂ-H )ಾನ ನರ=ಂಹಮೂ-H ಾಗೂ ಾ"# $!ಾ%F,ೕ
ರವರ oೕ@ೆ ಸೂಕ( ಾನೂನು ಕ,ಮ ಜರು = ನನ*ೆ ಾ%ಯ ೊ/ಸ<ೇಾ
.
ೋರು'ೆ(ೕೆ
”
ವಂದ ೆಗ9ೆpಂ"*ೆ
(Emphasis added)
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
All that the petitioner is alleged of in the complaint is
that, she was filling in the ear of mother in-law and father in-
law by repeatedly calling over the telephone , from Luxemburg.
Except this, there is no other allegation against the petitioner.
10. Instigation that too, by way of telephonic
conversation would not mean that it would become an
ingredient of Section 498A of the IPC. Permitting further
proceedings against this petitioner would run foul of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN
1
KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR , wherein, it is held as follows:
“Issue involved
10. Having perused the relevant facts and
contentions made by the appellants and
respondents, in our considered opinion, the
foremost issue which requires determination in the
instant case is whether allegations made against
the appellant in-laws are in the nature of general
omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be
quashed?
11. Before we delve into greater detail on the
nature and content of allegations made, it becomes
pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section
498-AIPC was aimed at preventing cruelty
committed upon a woman by her husband and her
in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention.
However, it is equally true, that in recent times,
1
( 2022) 6 SCC 599 or 2022 SCC Online SC 162
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
matrimonial litigation in the country has also
increased significantly and there is a greater
disaffection and friction surrounding the institution
of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted
in an increased tendency to employ provisions such
as Section 498-AIPC as instruments to settle
personal scores against the husband and his
relatives.
12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh
Sharma v. State of U.P. [Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P.,
(2018) 10 SCC 472: (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 301] , has
observed : (SCC pp. 478-79, para 14)
“14. Section 498-A was inserted in the
statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty
at the hands of husband or his relatives against a
wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to
result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned
in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act 46
of 1983. The expression “cruelty” in Section 498-A
covers conduct which may drive the woman to
commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or
physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view
to coerce her to meet unlawful demand.
[Explanation to Section 498-A.] It is a matter of
serious concern that large number of cases continue
to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment
of married women. We have already referred to
some of the statistics from the Crime Records
Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that
most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the
moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints
are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the
complaint, implications and consequences are not
visualised. At times such complaints lead to uncalled
for harassment not only to the accused but also to
the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the
chances of settlement.”
13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this
Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273: (2014) 3 SCC
(Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4)
“4. There is a phenomenal increase in
matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution
of marriage is greatly revered in this country.
Section 498-AIPC was introduced with avowed
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
object to combat the menace of harassment to a
woman at the hands of her husband and his
relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC 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 quite a number of cases, bedridden
grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands,
their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.”
14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7
SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been
observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36)
“32. It is a matter of common experience
that most of these complaints under Section 498-
AIPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial
issues without proper deliberations. We come across
a large number of such complaints which are not
even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At
the same time, rapid increase in the number of
genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter
of serious concern.
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 498-A as a basic human problem and must
make serious endeavour to help the parties in
arriving at an amicable resolution of that human
problem. They must discharge their duties to the
best of their abilities to ensure that social 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.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the
complaint the implications and consequences are not
properly visualised by the complainant that such
complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment,
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his
close relations.
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 complaint are
required to be scrutinised with great care and
circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and
protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony
and bitterness in the relationship amongst the
parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge
that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband
or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even
for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an
amicable settlement altogether. The process of
suffering is extremely long and painful.”
15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta
Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741: (2013) 1
SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed
: (SCC p. 749, para 21)
“21. It would be relevant at this stage to take
note of an apt observation of this Court recorded
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]
wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had
held that the High Court should have quashed the
complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute
wherein all family members had been roped into the
matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set
aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which
we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para 12)
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
‘12. … There has been an outburst of
matrimonial dispute 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.’
The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the
courts would not encourage such disputes.”
16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of
Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018)
14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also
observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6)
“6. … The courts should be careful in
proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes
pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry
deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be
roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless
specific instances of their involvement in the crime
are made out.”
17. The abovementioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this Court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse of
Section 498-AIPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial
disputes, without analysing the long-term
ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well
as the accused. It is further manifest from the said
judgments that false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations made in the course of
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result
in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this
Court by way of its judgments has warned the
courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-
laws of the husband when no prima facie case is
made out against them.
18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a
perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is
revealed that general allegations are levelled against the
appellants. The complainant alleged that “all accused
harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating
her pregnancy”. Furthermore, no specific and distinct
allegations have been made against either of the
appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been
attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general
allegations made against them. This simply leads to a
situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by
each accused in furtherance of the offence. The
allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can
at best be said to have been made out on account of
small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since
he has not appealed against the order of the High Court,
we have not examined the veracity of allegations made
against him. However, as far as the appellants are
concerned, the allegations made against them being
general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.
19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of
harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a
previous FIR Respondent 1 i.e. the State of Bihar,
contends that the present FIR pertained to offences
committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given
by the husband Md. Ikram before the learned Principal
Judge, Purnea, to not harass the respondent wife herein
for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the
assurances, all accused continued their demands and
harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts
constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in
question herein dated 1-4-2019, is distinct and
independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an
earlier FIR dated 11-12-2017.
20. Here it must be borne in mind that
although the two FIRs may constitute two
independent instances, based on separate
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
transactions, the present complaint fails to
establish specific allegations against the in-laws of
the respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the
absence of clear allegations against the appellant
in-laws would simply result in an abuse of the
process of law.
21. Therefore, upon consideration of the
relevant circumstances and in the absence of any
specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it
would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go
through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and
omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation
where the relatives of the complainant's husband
are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted
by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal
trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts
severe scars upon the accused, and such an
exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.”
(Emphasis supplied)
10.1. The Apex Court in the case of MARAM NIRMALA v.
STATE OF TELANGANA reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
2913 , has held as follows:
“….. ….. …..
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)
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
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.
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.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
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
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
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
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,
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
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
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)
If the facts obtaining in the case at hand, i.e., the
allegation made in the complaint and the afore-quoted
judgments of the Apex Court, what would unmistakably emerge
is, permitting further investigation / proceedings against the
petitioner - accused No.4 would become an abuse of the
process of the law qua the offence punishable under Section
498A of the IPC.
11. The other offences alleged are the ones punishable
under Sections 312, 504 and 506 of the IPC, the ingredients of
which are found in Section 503 of the IPC. The interpretation
of what should be the ingredients of the said offences need not
detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
Apex Court in the case of MOHAMMAD WAJID AND
ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P . reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 951 considering the very offences has held as follows:
“ SECTIONS 503, 504 AND 506 OF THE IPC
24. Chapter XXII of the IPC relates to Criminal
Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance. Section 503 reads
thus:—
“Section 503. Criminal intimidation. —
Whoever threatens another with any injury to
his person, reputation or property, or to the
person or reputation of any one in whom that
person is interested, with intent to cause alarm
to that person, or to cause that person to do any
act which he is not legally bound to do, or to
omit to do any act which that person is legally
entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat, commits criminal
intimidation.
Explanation.—A threat to injure the
reputation of any deceased person in whom the
person threatened is interested, is within this
section.
Illustration
A, for the purpose of inducing B to resist from
prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A
is guilty of criminal intimidation.”
25. Section 504 reads thus:—
“ Section 504. Intentional insult with intent
to provoke breach of the peace .—Whoever
intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to
any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that
such provocation will cause him to break the public
peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both.”
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
26. Section 506 reads thus:—
“ Section 506. Punishment for criminal
intimidation. —Whoever commits, the offence of
criminal intimidation shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous
hurt, etc. —And if the threat be to cause death or
grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any
property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable
with death or imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven
years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, or with fine,
or with both.”
27. An offence under Section 503 has
following essentials:—
1) Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or
(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in
whom that person is interested.
2) The threat must be with intent;
(i) to cause alarm to that person; or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act which
he is not legally bound to do as the means
of avoiding the execution of such threat;
or
(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act
which that person is legally entitled to do
as the means of avoiding the execution of
such threat.
28. Section 504 of the IPC contemplates
intentionally insulting a person and thereby
provoking such person insulted to breach the
peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing
it to be likely that the person insulted may be
provoked so as to cause a breach of the public
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse
may not come within the purview of the section.
But, the words of abuse in a particular case might
amount to an intentional insult provoking the
person insulted to commit a breach of the public
peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive
language is used intentionally and is of such a
nature as would in the ordinary course of events
lead the person insulted to break the peace or to
commit an offence under the law, the case is not
taken away from the purview of the Section
merely because the insulted person did not
actually break the peace or commit any offence
having exercised self control or having been
subjected to abject terror by the offender. In
judging whether particular abusive language is
attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has to
find out what, in the ordinary circumstances,
would be the effect of the abusive language used
and not what the complainant actually did as a
result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool
temperament or sense of discipline. It is the
ordinary general nature of the abusive language
that is the test for considering whether the
abusive language is an intentional insult likely to
provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of
the peace and not the particular conduct or
temperament of the complainant.
29. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or
insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult
within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does
not have the necessary element of being likely to
incite the person insulted to commit a breach of
the peace of an offence and the other element of
the accused intending to provoke the person
insulted to commit a breach of the peace or
knowing that the person insulted is likely to
commit a breach of the peace. Each case of
abusive language shall have to be decided in the
light of the facts and circumstances of that case
and there cannot be a general proposition that no
one commits an offence under Section 504, IPC if
he merely uses abusive language against the
complainant. In King Emperor v. Chunnibhai
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78, a Division Bench
of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:—
“To constitute an offence under Section 504, I.P.C. it
is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause
the other party to lose his temper and say or do
something violent. Public peace can be broken by
angry words as well as deeds.”
(Emphasis supplied)
30. A bare perusal of Section 506 of
the IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to
criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal
intimidation is made out, it must be established that the
accused had an intention to cause alarm to the
complainant.
31. In the facts and circumstances of the
case and more particularly, considering the nature
of the allegations levelled in the FIR, a prima
facie case to constitute the offence punishable
under Section 506 of the IPC may probably could
be said to have been disclosed but not under
Section 504 of the IPC. The allegations with
respect to the offence punishable under
Section 504 of the IPC can also be looked at from
a different perspective. In the FIR, all that the
first informant has stated is that abusive language
was used by the accused persons. What exactly
was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in
the FIR. One of the essential elements, as
discussed above, constituting an offence under
Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have
been an act or conduct amounting to intentional
insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive
words, it is necessary to know what those words
were in order to decide whether the use of those
words amounted to intentional insult. In the
absence of these words, it is not possible to
decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult
is present.”
(Emphasis supplied)
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
If the exposition of law rendered by the Apex Court in the
afore-quoted judgments is juxtaposed with the facts obtaining
in the case at hand, the inevitable conclusion that emerges is
that, the foundational ingredients of the offences alleged
against the petitioner, including the offence punishable under
Section 312 of the IPC, remain conspicuously absent. In such
circumstances, permitting the machinery of criminal
investigation to continue against the petitioner on the aforesaid
allegations would not merely be contrary to the principles
enunciated by the Apex Court, but would also amount to a
palpable abuse of the process of the law, culminating in a grave
miscarriage of justice.
12. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2–
complainant would, however, seek to contend that grave
allegations subsist against the petitioner. It is urged that the
petitioner, while residing in Luxembourg, would repeatedly call
the complainant in India and threaten her with dire
consequences. Even if such allegation is accepted at its
highest, it scarcely advances the case of the
complainant. To accept such a contention in its
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31937
CRL.P No. 10716 of 2024
HC-KAR
unqualified breadth would be to dangerously widen the
dragnet of criminal law, so much so that every
telephonic communication by an in-law to a daughter-in-
law could be projected as criminal culpability. Such an
interpretation would be wholly untenable. This Court
notices the submission only to reject it outright, as the
allegation, even if taken on its face value, does not satisfy the
essential ingredients of the offence under Section 498A of the
IPC, nor does it otherwise disclose any cognizable offence
against the petitioner.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
a. The criminal petition is allowed.
b. The impugned crime in Crime No.377/2024, pending
th
before the 30 Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, CMM Court, Bengaluru, qua the petitioner,
stands quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
NVJ/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0