Proceedings Under Section 498A IPC Maintainable Despite Divorce Allegations if Mental Cruelty is Prima Facie Established

The petitioner (husband) and Opposite Party No. 2 (wife) married in 2007

The wife filed an FIR on February 19, 2022, under Sections 498A/323/506 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging physical and mental torture, habitual drunkenness by the husband, and desertion post-2016

The petitioner contended the case was a "counter-blast" to his earlier complaint against the wife and asserted that a divorce was registered via Talaq on January 7, 2022

records revealed the marriage was registered under the Special Marriage Act in 2019, despite the husband marrying another woman in 2018

A chargesheet was filed, and the petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC

1. Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed on the grounds of being a "counter-blast," barred by limitation, or consisting of vague and omnibus allegations

2. Whether the materials collected during investigation prima facie constitute offences under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

The court applied Section 482 of the CrPC, emphasizing the inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice

It relied on Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, which mandates that a complaint must contain specific particulars of the role played by each accused

Under K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka, it noted that while extramarital relations are immoral, they must meet the specific threshold of "cruelty" to attract Section 498A IPC

Regarding limitation, the court applied the principle that Section 498A is a "continuing offence"

It also referenced Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand regarding the cautious exercise of quashing powers

The court found that the marriage registration in 2019 contradicted the husband's claim of total desertion since 2016

While the petitioner claimed a Talaq divorce, the court noted he suppressed this from the wife, and the ongoing marital discord, combined with his refusal to maintain the wife (who suffered from bone ulcer) and children, prima facie suggested mental cruelty under Section 498A

The court rejected the "limitation" argument, classifying the cruelty as a continuing offence

Upon scrutinizing the chargesheet, the court found zero material evidence—medical or otherwise—to support charges of physical assault (Sec. 323), criminal intimidation (Sec. 506), or specific demands for dowry (Sec. 3/4 DP Act), labeling those allegations as vague and omnibus

The court declined to quash the charge under Section 498A of the IPC, holding there were sufficient materials to warrant a trial on the grounds of mental cruelty and desertion

The Criminal Revisional Application was allowed in part and the Trial Court was directed to proceed solely with the Section 498A IPC charge