- 1 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:434

CRL.P No. 4025 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6

TH

DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4025 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

1. VIMALA N

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

W/O D NAGARAJU

RESIDING AT GANGAMMA GUDI ROAD,

SRINIVASA BEKARI NEAR, M V BADAVANA,

HOSKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.

2. D NAGARAJU

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

S/O DEVARAJU,

R/AT NO.38, 3RD MAIN ROAD,

NEAR WATER TANK, KANAKA NAGAR,

HOSAKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL,

BANGALORE - 562 114.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SUKANYA H.D, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

HOSKOTE POLICE,

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,

BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. SMT. R. NAVYA

- 2 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:434

CRL.P No. 4025 of 2023

W/O CHATHURA,

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

R/AT SIDDESHWARA NILAYA,

OPP. TO ROHINI SILKS GANGAMMAGUDI ROAD,

HOSKOTE TOWN,

BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560 067.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI. ROSHAN M.C, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO

QUASHING OF THE SAID IMPUGNED COMPLAINT AND FIR

IN CRIME NO.92/2023 REGISTERED BY THE HOSKOTE

POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 498A, 323, 504,

506, 114, 149 OF IPC AND 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY

PROHIBITION ACT AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS

PENDING BEFORE THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) JMFC

COURT, HOSKOTE AT BENGALURU.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in

question registration of a crime in Crime No.92/202 3

registered for the offences punishable under Sectio ns

498A, 323, 504, 506, 114, 149 of the Indian Penal C ode,

- 3 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:434

CRL.P No. 4025 of 2023

1860 ('the IPC' for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard Smt. Sukanya H.D., learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners; Sri. K. Nageshwarapp a,

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

respondent No.1 and Sri. Roshan M.C., learned couns el

appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The petitioners are accused Nos.4 and 5,

distant relatives of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3. Respon dent

No.2 is the complainant. The complainant and accuse d

No.1 get married on 11.12.2022. It transpires that soon

after marriage, the relationship between accused No.1 and

the complainant flounders. On floundering of the

relationship, respondent No.2-complainant registers a

crime, which becomes a crime in Crime No.92/2023 fo r the

afore-quoted offences. The petitioners are also dra gged

into the web of crime. The dragging of the petitioners into

the web of crime is what has driven these petitione rs to

this Court in the subject petition.

- 4 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:434

CRL.P No. 4025 of 2023

4. This Court had protected the interests of these

petitioners by passing the following order:

"Learned High Court Government Pleader is

directed to accept notice for respondent No.1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners to serve a

copy of the petition papers upon the learned High

Court Government Pleader, forthwith.

Issue emergent notice to respondent No.2.

ORDER ON I.A.NO.1 OF 2023

The petitioner is before this Court calling in

question proceedings in Crime No.92 of 2023

registered for offences punishable under Sections

498A, 323, 504, 506, 114 and 149 of the IPC and

also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961.

The complainant in the complaint narrates all

the allegations against the husband, mother-in-law

and father-in-law. Insofar as the petitioners are

concerned the only allegation is that they have

instigated all the three to torture the complainant.

Such instigation without anything in detail

cannot lay a foundation against the petitioners, in

particular for offences punishable under Section

498A of the IPC and other offences.

Therefore, finding all allegations against

accused Nos.1 to 3, there shall be an interim order

of stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.92 of

2023, against the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5,

till the next date of hearing. I.A.No.1 of 2023 is

allowed."

The interim order is in subsistence even as on date.

- 5 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:434

CRL.P No. 4025 of 2023

5. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners submits that the petitioners are distant relatives

and did not reside with the couple at any point in time and

therefore, none of the ingredients of the offences are even

present in the case at hand qua the petitioners. The

learned counsel further contends that the parties to the lis

have settled the dispute in MC.No.2/2024 by drawing up

terms of settlement on 28.11.2025. It also recognises the

closure of these proceedings.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the

respondents would not dispute the position of settlement

between the parties.

7. Be that as it may. Settlement or otherwise, the

offences against these petitioners as found in the complaint

is as follows:

11. ಗಂಡ ALNG ಾವನವರು T5U3NY RSWLD/J ED,UKLNY

HTY5C- RT6 TV21U. 1T6 TV2ILN 4N98…PN92()LNG83N. 'ಾವ

(ೕ)ಯ LN9I5;NY1U. PN9MUBQ:h- eN4D.p 4N98…PN92(),G3N ಎಂದು

ನಂ1¹ T5U3N ಾ#$ೊಂಡು ನಂತರ ನನ2ೆ ವರದQëuÉ 3ರುಕುಳ R8…

ED1rK3Dp ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤Ãr DrzÀ ED71ILN

ನ5ೆದು$ೊಳ&6ೆ ನನ2ೆ ನಂ1$ೆ 6ೊ7ೕಹ ಾ# ªÉÆøÀ ED…OULDG;N. 9ಾಗೂ

11. ಬಂ2ಾರದ cM3NV24N.lD- ಅವರ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà QvÀÄÛ

- 6 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:434

CRL.P No. 4025 of 2023

ElÄÖPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, CªÀgÀ EZÉÑAiÀÄAvÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 40 ®PÀë RZÀÄð

ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛêÉ."

Barring this allegation against these petitioners,

there is nothing that is alleged. If this be the allegation

against these petitioners, it would only be an omni bus

allegation of instigation to the family of the husband or the

family of the husband to act in a particular manner against

the wife.

8. The added circumstance is that the parties to

the lis have settled the dispute amongst themselves in an

MC.No.2/2024 on 28.11.2025. With all these being th e

case and also finding no allegation that would touch upon

the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498A, 323,

504, 506, 114, 149 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as is alleged, permitt ing

further proceedings would run foul of plethora of

judgments rendered by the Apex Court. I deem it

appropriate to quote the latest judgment of the Apex Court

in the case of BELIDE SWAGATH KUMAR v. STATE OF

TELANGANA

1

, wherein it is held as follows:

1

2025 SCC OnLine SC 2890

- 7 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:434

CRL.P No. 4025 of 2023

“18. Section 498A of the IPC deals with offences

committed by the husband or relatives of the husband

subjecting cruelty towards the wife. The said provision

reads as under:

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of

a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of

the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to

cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a

term which may extend to three years and shall

also be liable to fine.

Explanation.— For the purpose of this section,

“cruelty” means—

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as

is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide

or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb

or health (whether mental or physical) of the

woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such

harassment is with a view to coercing her or

any person related to her to meet any

unlawful demand for any property or valuable

security or is on account of failure by her or

any person related to her to meet such

demand.”

19. Further, Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act talk

about the penalty for giving or taking or demanding a

dowry.

“3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.—

(1) If any person, after the commencement of

this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or

taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less

than five years, and with fine which shall not be

less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount

of the value of such dowry, whichever is more.

Provided that the Court may, for adequate

and special reasons to be recorded in the

judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for

a term of less than five years.

- 8 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:434

CRL.P No. 4025 of 2023

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or

in relation to,—

(a) presents which are given at the time of a

marriage to the bride (without any demand

having been made in that behalf):

Provided that such presents are

entered in a list maintained in accordance

with the rules made under this Act;

(b) presents which are given at the time of a

marriage to the bridegroom (without any

demand having been made in that behalf):

Provided that such presents are

entered in a list maintained in accordance with

the rules made under this Act:

Provided further that where such

presents are made by or on behalf of the bride

or any person related to the bride, such

presents are of a customary nature and the

value thereof is not excessive having regard to

the financial status of the person by whom, or

on whose behalf, such presents are given.

4. Penalty for demanding dowry.— If any

person demands, directly or indirectly, from the

parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride

or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry,

he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a

term which shall not be less than six months, but

which may extend to two years and with fine

which may extend to ten thousand rupees:

Provided that the Court may, for adequate

and special reasons to be mentioned in the

judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for

a term of less than six months.”

20. An offence is punishable under

Section 498A of the IPC when a husband or his

relative subjects a woman to cruelty, which may

result in imprisonment for a term extending up to

three years and a fine. The Explanation under

Section 498A of the IPC defines “cruelty” for the

purpose of Section 498A of the IPC to mean any

of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b). The

- 9 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:434

CRL.P No. 4025 of 2023

first limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of

Section 498A of the IPC states that “cruelty”

means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature

as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide.

The second limb of clause (a) of the Explanation

of Section 498A of the IPC, states that cruelty

means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature

as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or

health (whether mental or physical) of the

woman. Further, clause (b) of the Explanation of

Section 498A of the IPC states that cruelty would

also include harassment of the woman where

such harassment is to coerce her or any person

related to her to meet any unlawful demand for

any property or valuable security or is on account

of failure by her or any person related to her to

meet such demand.

21. Further, Section 3 of the DP Act deals with

the penalty for giving or taking dowry. It states that

any person who engages in giving, taking, or abetting

the exchange of dowry, shall face a punishment of

imprisonment for a minimum of five years and a fine of

not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value of

the dowry, whichever is greater. Section 4 of the DP

Act talks of penalty for demanding dowry. It states that

any person demanding dowry directly or indirectly,

from the parents or other relatives or guardians of a

bride or bridegroom shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than

six months, but which may extend to two years and

with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

22. The issue for consideration is whether, given

the facts and circumstances of the case and after

examining the FIR and the Complaint Case, the High

Court was correct in refusing to quash the ongoing

criminal proceedings against the appellants arising out

of FIR No. 29 of 2022 dated 27.01.2022 and the

Complaint Case No. 1067 of 2022 under

Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP

Act.

- 10 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:434

CRL.P No. 4025 of 2023

23. Courts have to be extremely careful and

cautious in dealing with complaints and must

take pragmatic realities into consideration while

dealing with matrimonial cases where the

allegations have to be scrutinized with greater

care and circumspection in order to prevent

miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of

law. The allegations put forth by the

complainant-respondent No. 2 have been

considered by us. In our view, they reflect the

daily wear and tear of marriage and can, in no

way, be categorised as cruelty. The act of the

accused-appellant of sending money back to his family

members cannot be misconstrued in a way that leads

to a criminal prosecution. The allegation that the

accused-appellant forced the complainant-respondent

No. 2 to maintain an excel sheet of all the expenses,

even if taken on the face value, cannot come under the

definition of cruelty. The monetary and financial

dominance of the accused-appellant, as alleged by the

complainant-respondent No. 2, cannot qualify as an

instance of cruelty, especially in the absence of any

tangible mental or physical harm caused. The said

situation is a mirror reflection of the Indian society

where men of the households often try to dominate

and take charge of the finances of the women but

criminal litigation cannot become a gateway or a tool to

settle scores and pursue personal vendettas.

Furthermore, the other allegations of the complainant-

respondent No. 2 such as lack of care on the part o f

the husband-the accused-appellant during pregnancy

and postpartum and constant taunts about her after-

birth weight, if accepted prima facie, at best reflect

poorly upon the character of the accused-appellant but

the same cannot amount to cruelty so as to make him

suffer through the process of litigation.

24. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that

the allegations made by the complainant-

respondent No. 2 are vague and omnibus. Other

than claiming that the husband and his family

along with the accused-appellant herein mentally

harassed her with a demand of dowry, the

complainant-respondent No. 2 has not provided

any specific details or described any particular

- 11 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:434

CRL.P No. 4025 of 2023

instance of harassment . Although she has alleged

that an amount totalling to Rupees One Crore was

demanded by the accused-appellant and his family

members, the complainant-respondent No. 2 has failed

to put forth any evidence or material on record to

elaborate or substantiate the same. Furthermore, the

complainant-respondent No. 2 has failed to

impress the court as to how the said alleged

harassment has caused her any injury, mental or

physical. There has been no remote or proximate

act or omission attributed to the accused-

appellant that implicates him or assigns him any

specific role in the said FIR for the offence of

498A of the IPC. Merely stating that the accused-

appellant has mentally harassed the

complainant-respondent No. 2 with respect to a

demand of dowry does not fulfil the ingredients

of Section 498A of the IPC especially in the face

of absence of any cogent material or evidence on

record to substantiate the said allegations. The

term “cruelty” cannot be established without

specific instances. The tendency of invoking

these sections, without mentioning any specific

details, weakens the case of prosecution and

casts serious aspersions on the viability of the

version of the complainant. Therefore, this Court

cannot ignore the missing specifics in an FIR

which is the premise of invoking criminal

machinery of the State. In such cases involving

allegations of cruelty and harassment, there

would normally be a series of offending acts,

which would be required to be spelt out by the

complainant against perpetrators in specific

terms to involve such perpetrators into the

criminal proceedings sought to be initiated

against them and therefore mere general

allegations of harassment without pointing out

the specifics against such persons would not be

sufficient to continue criminal proceedings.

25. In this regard, it would be apposite to rely

on the judgment in the case of State of

Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC

335 (“Bhajan Lal”) with particular reference to

paragraph 102 therein, where this Court observed:

- 12 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:434

CRL.P No. 4025 of 2023

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of

the various relevant provisions of the Code under

Chapter XIV and of the principles of law

enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions

relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power

under Article 226 or the inherent powers under

Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted

and reproduced above, we have given the

following categories of cases by way of illustration

wherein such power could be exercised either to

prevent abuse of the process of any court or

otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it

may not be possible to lay down any precise,

clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and

inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give

an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases

wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first

information report or the complaint, even

if they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima

facie constitute any offence or make out a

case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first

information report and other materials, if

any, accompanying the FIR do not

disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an

investigation by police officers under

Section 156(1) of the Code except under

an order of a Magistrate within the

purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations

made in the FIR or complaint and the

evidence collected in support of the same

do not disclose the commission of any

offence and make out a case against the

accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not

constitute a cognizable offence but

constitute only a non-cognizable offence,

no investigation is permitted by a police

officer without an order of a Magistrate as

contemplated under Section 155(2) of the

Code.

- 13 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:434

CRL.P No. 4025 of 2023

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint are so absurd and inherently

improbable on the basis of which no

prudent person can ever reach a just

conclusion that there is sufficient ground

for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar

engrafted in any of the provisions of the

Code or the concerned Act (under which a

criminal proceeding is instituted) to the

institution and continuance of the

proceedings and/or where there is a

specific provision in the Code or the

concerned Act, providing efficacious

redress for the grievance of the aggrieved

party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with

an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance

on the accused and with a view to spite

him due to private and personal grudge.”

26. On a careful consideration of the

aforementioned judicial dictum, we find that none o f

the offences alleged against the accused-appellant

herein is made out. In fact, we find that the allegations

of cruelty, mental harassment and voluntarily causing

hurt against the accused-appellant herein have been

made with a mala-fide intent with vague and general

allegations and therefore, the judgment of this Court in

the case of Bhajan Lal and particularly sub-

paragraphs (1) and (7) of paragraph 102, extracted

above, squarely apply to the facts of these cases. It is

neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to

permit the present prosecution emanating from the FIR

and consequent Complaint Case No. 1067 of 2022 to

continue.

27. Furthermore, at this juncture, we find it

appropriate to quote the judgment of this Court

in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of

Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 wherein it was

observed:

- 14 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:434

CRL.P No. 4025 of 2023

“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-A 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

- 15 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:434

CRL.P No. 4025 of 2023

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.

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.”

(Emphasis supplied)

In the light of afore-quoted judgment of the Apex

Court, permitting further proceedings would become an

abuse of the process of law and result in the miscarriage of

justice.

- 16 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:434

CRL.P No. 4025 of 2023

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal petition is allowed.

(ii) The proceedings in Crime

No.92/2023 pending on the file of

Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) JMFC

Court, Hoskote, Bangalore stands

quashed qua the petitioners.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

JUDGE

JY

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34