Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against 5 In-Laws, Finding Wife’s Complaint Vengeful Amid Cross-Cases Over Same Incident

Respondent No. 2 alleged that on 13 September 2023, the petitioners entered her parental home on the pretext of holding a panchayat, abused and threatened her, and assaulted her and her parents.

Police registered Crime No. 108/2023 under Sections 427, 506, 504, 149, 448 and 323 IPC, investigated, and filed a charge sheet; the Magistrate took cognizance.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the complaint was a counterblast to matrimonial proceedings and that petitioner No. 1 had filed a counter-complaint concerning the same incident, which also resulted in a charge sheet.

Respondent No. 2 and the State opposed quashing, relying on the charge-sheet materials and witness statements.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Under the principles in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 488, where proceedings are alleged to be frivolous, vexatious, or initiated for vengeance, the court may examine the FIR alongside attending circumstances and investigation materials, while avoiding a trial-like assessment of evidence.

Relying on State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, and R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21, the Court reiterated that quashing is appropriate where allegations accepted at face value do not make out an offence, or where continuation would constitute an abuse of process; the High Court should not ordinarily assess the reliability of evidence, which is for the trial court.

The Court noted that the parties’ relationship and the existence of matrimonial disputes were undisputed, and that petitioner No. 1 had lodged a counter-complaint concerning the same incident, resulting in a charge sheet against respondent No. 2 and her family.

On examining the complaint and witness statements, the Court found only bald and omnibus allegations, without specific overt acts or an apparent reason for the petitioners’ alleged visit and conduct.

Considering those deficiencies together with the counter-case and surrounding circumstances, it concluded that the complaint appeared to have been lodged out of vengeance and that the proceedings’ continuation would abuse the process of court.

It quashed the FIR in Crime No. 108/2023 against accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the alleged offences under Sections 427, 506, 504, 149, 448 and 323 IPC.