Section 498A IPC proceedings quashed where complainant’s conduct rendered their continuation an abuse of process.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 20 April 2016 whereby the learned A.C.J.M., 5th Ara, Bhojpur, took cognizance against him for an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 2173C of 2015 (Trial No. 1426 of 2016).

The complainant, who was married to the petitioner on 15 December 2014, alleged that upon entering her matrimonial home she discovered that the petitioner was already in a relationship with Rita Devi. She further alleged that, after she objected, the petitioner and the co-accused subjected her to assault and torture, attempted to set her on fire, and removed her ornaments.

Although notice was validly served, Opposite Party No. 2 did not appear before the High Court to contest the application.

Whether the allegations in the complaint disclosed the ingredients of an offence under Section 498A IPC against the petitioner?

Whether continuation of the criminal proceeding and the order taking cognizance dated 20 April 2016 amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court warranting exercise of the High Court’s quashing jurisdiction?

The Court considered Section 498A IPC, including its statutory explanation of “cruelty,” which covers wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health, and harassment connected with unlawful demands for property or valuable security.

The Court also considered the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings for abuse of process under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the categories concerning malicious or vexatious prosecution.

It further took note of the Supreme Court decisions in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr., [2024] 6 SCR 129; Nitin Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2013; and Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2024 INSC 737, relied upon by the petitioner in support of scrutinising omnibus, malicious, or vexatious allegations in matrimonial prosecutions.

The Court noted the petitioner’s submission that the complaint, on its plain reading, did not establish the statutory ingredients of Section 498A IPC and that the prosecution was malicious and vexatious.

It also considered the complainant’s failure to appear despite valid service of notice and her alleged non-pursuit of the case before the court below.

Although the judgment does not undertake a separate, detailed analysis of each allegation against the statutory explanation of cruelty, the Court, after hearing the State and examining the record, treated the circumstances and the conduct of Opposite Party No. 2 as sufficient to justify interference.

It accordingly concluded that continuation of the proceeding against the petitioner would not be warranted and amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court.

It quashed the order dated 20 April 2016 taking cognizance in Complaint Case No. 2173C of 2015 (Trial No. 1426 of 2016), pending before the learned A.C.J.M., 5th Ara, Bhojpur, for the offence under Section 498A IPC.

The criminal miscellaneous application was allowed.