2026:HHC:7-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No. 122 of 2013

Reserved on: 01.12.2025

Date of Decision: 01.01.2026

Vipin Kumar ...Appellant

Versus

State of H.P. ...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

No

For the Appellant : Mr Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate

General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment

of conviction dated 26.03.2013 and order of sentence dated

30.03.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una,

H.P., (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellant (accused

before learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of

an offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code

(IPC) and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for

two years, pay a fine of ₹5,000/- and in default of payment of

1

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2

2026:HHC:7-DB

fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 30 days.

(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they

were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present

appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused

before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences

punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal

Code (IPC). It was asserted that Sunita Kumari (since deceased) is

the daughter of the informant Suresh Kumar (PW1). She was

married to Vipin Kumar (accused) in the year 2007. One son was

born to her. Vipin Kumar was working as a Halwai in Hoshiarpur.

However, he had started raising the construction of the house

and was residing in his home at Una. The informant and Raj

Kumari (PW2) went to the house of the accused on 06.05.2012.

Sunita Devi did not talk to them and told them angrily that she

had no relations with them. The informant repeatedly enquired

as to why she was saying so. Sunita cried and said that the

informant had pushed her away. The informant made inquiries

from Vipin, but he did not reveal anything. He counselled Vipin.

The informant and his wife returned to their home. Vipin

informed the informant on 08.05.2012 that Sunita Devi had died

3

2026:HHC:7-DB

after consuming some medicine. The matter was reported to the

police. An entry No. 39 (Ext.PW8/D) was recorded in the Police

Station. ASI Charanjit Kumar (PW9) and Constable Hardeep

Kumar (PW7) were deputed to verify the correctness of

information. ASI Charanjit (PW9) conducted the inquest on the

dead body and prepared the reports (Ext.PW5/B and Ext. PW5/C).

He clicked the photographs of the dead body (Ext.P1 to Ext.P3).

Dr Ravinder Mohan (PW5) conducted the postmortem

examination of Sunita and found that she had not sustained any

injuries. He preserved her viscera and handed them over to ASI

Charanjit Kumar (PW9) for chemical analysis. He issued the

report (Ext.PW5/D). Suresh Kumar (PW1) made a statement

(Ext.PW1/A), which was sent to the Police Station, where FIR

(Ext.PW8/A) was registered. SI Mohinder Singh (PW10)

investigated the matter. He went to the spot and prepared the

site plan (Ext.PW10/A). ASI Charanjit Kumar (PW9) took the

photographs (Ext.P4 and Ext.P5) of the spot. SI Mohinder Singh

(PW10) scraped the vomit of the deceased from the courtyard of

the house and put it in a container. He put the container in a

parcel and sealed the parcel with three seals of seal ‘A’. He seized

the parcel vide memo (Ext.PW4/A). He found one tube of Celphos

4

2026:HHC:7-DB

without a lid. He put the tube in a parcel and sealed the parcel

with three seals of seal ‘A’. He seized the parcel vide memo (Ext.

PW4/B). SI Mohinder Singh (PW10) filed an application (Ext.

PW6/A) for obtaining the marriage certificate. Rakesh Kumar

(PW6) issued the marriage certificate (Ext.PW6/B). The case

property was sent to SFSL for chemical analysis. The result (Ext.

PW5/E) was issued, mentioning that Phosphine gas was detected

in the viscera, vomit and tube labelled as Celphos. No other

poison could be detected in the case property. Dr Ravinder

Mohan (PW5) issued the final opinion that the cause of death was

Aluminum Phosphide poisoning, and the probable time between

the death and the postmortem was 16 hours. The statements of

witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the

completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and

presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Court No. 1, Una, District Una, who committed it to the Court of

Sessions for trial.

3. Learned Sessions Judge assigned the matter to

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, District Una (learned

Trial Court).

5

2026:HHC:7-DB

4. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to

frame the charges for the commission of offences punishable

under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC, which were read over and

explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to

be tried.

5. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses to prove its

case. Informant Suresh Kumar (PW1) and Raj Kumari (PW2) are

the parents, and Mohinder Kumar (PW3) is the cousin of the

deceased. Pinki Devi (PW4) is the sister-in-law/neighbour of the

accused. Dr Ravinder Mohan (PW5) conducted the postmortem

examination of the deceased. Rakesh Kumar (PW6) proved the

marriage certificate. Constable Hardeep Kumar (PW7) carried the

case property to SFSL Junga. HC Pawan Kumar (PW8) was

working as MHC with whom the case property was deposited. ASI

Charanjit Singh (PW9) conducted the inquest on the dead body.

SI Mohinder Singh (PW10) investigated the matter.

6. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section

313 of the CrPC, admitted that he was married to Sunita. He

denied the rest of the prosecution's case. He stated that Sunita

was never subjected to any cruelty. The deceased had cordial

6

2026:HHC:7-DB

relation with him. The witness deposed falsely against him. He

did not produce any evidence in defence.

7. Learned Trial Court held that the evidence on record

established that the accused started harassing, maltreating and

beating the deceased. He used to leave her in her parental home

on the pretext that he had no means to maintain her. She

delivered the child in her parental home. The accused did not

visit her after the delivery of the child. It was duly proved on

record that the accused had subjected the victim to cruelty of

such a nature as was sufficient to drive the deceased to commit

suicide or cause grave injury to her life. However, the evidence

did not show that the accused had harassed the victim to such an

extent that she was left with no option but to commit suicide.

Hence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of the

commission of an offence under Section 306 of IPC but convicted

him of the commission of an offence punishable under Section

498A of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by

the learned Trial Court, the accused has filed the present appeal

asserting that the learned Trial Court misread and

misappreciated the evidence on record. The statement of the

7

2026:HHC:7-DB

informant was not corroborated by any independent witness.

Pinki (PW4) specifically stated that she had not heard the noise

of any quarrel from the house of the accused. She is an

immediate neighbour of the accused and the best witness to

depose about the cruelty. The prosecution relied upon the

testimonies of the related witnesses to prove its case. The

ingredients of commission of an offence punishable under

Section 498A of IPC were not satisfied, and the learned Trial

Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. Hence, it

was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment

and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

9. I have heard Mr Raju Ram Rahi, learned counsel for

the appellant/accused, and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy

Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

10. Mr Raju Ram Rahi, learned counsel for the

appellant/accused, submitted that the testimonies of the

prosecution’s witnesses are highly vague and general in nature.

No particulars of date, time and place were given. Pinki (PW4)

did not support the prosecution's case. She is the immediate

neighbour of the accused and the best witness to depose about

harassment. Learned Trial Court erred in convicting and

8

2026:HHC:7-DB

sentencing the accused. Therefore, he prayed that the present

appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the

learned Trial Court be set aside.

11. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for

the respondent/State, submitted that the prosecution’s

witnesses categorically stated that the accused had harassed and

beaten the victim. The victim had even confided in her parents

about the harassment before her death. The plea of the accused

that the relationship between him and the victim was cordial

does not explain the commission of suicide by the deceased.

Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.

12. I have given considerable thought to the submissions

made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

13. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 286:

2009 SCC OnLine SC 1693 that the Court has to see that particulars

of the offences committed by every accused and the role played

by the accused in committing the offence are given in the

complaint made to the police. It was observed: -

“9. To lodge a proper complaint, the mere mention of the

sections and the language of those sections is not the be-all

and end-all of the matter. What is required to be brought to

9

2026:HHC:7-DB

the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence

committed by each and every accused and the role played by

each and every accused in committing that offence.

10. When we see the complaint, it is sadly vague. It does

not show as to which of the accused has committed what

offence, and what is the exact role played by these

appellants in the commission of the offence. There could

be said that something is against Rajesh, as the allegations

are made against him more precisely, but he is no more

and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it

would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the

prosecution to continue against the aged parents of

Rajesh, the present appellants herein, on the basis of a

vague and general complaint which is silent about the

precise acts of the appellants.” (Emphasis supplied)

14. Similarly, it was held in Abhishek v. State of M.P., 2023

SCC OnLine SC 1083: 2023 INSC 779 that the tendency of false

implication by way of general omnibus allegations, if left

unchecked, would result in the misuse of the process of law. It

was observed:

“13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a

petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against

them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are

neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty

abound on this score. We may now take note of some

decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan

Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this

Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where

the High Court had refused to quash an FIR registered for

various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that

the foremost issue that required determination was whether

allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus

allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court

referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed

over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased

10

2026:HHC:7-DB

tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial

disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of

general omnibus allegations made in the course of

matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse

of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found

that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws

by the wife, and it was held that allowing their prosecution

in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws

would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also

noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual

acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused, and

such an exercise ought to be discouraged.

14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667],

this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the

husband and all his immediate relations is also not

uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It

was observed that 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, such as allegations of harassment by the

husband's close relations, who were living in different cities

and never visited or rarely visited the place where the

complainant resided, would add an entirely different

complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised

with great care and circumspection.

15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184],

this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory

provisions and the language thereof for lodging a

complaint is not the ‘be all and end all’ of the matter, as

what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the

particulars of the offence committed by each and every

accused and the role played by each and every accused in the

commission of that offence. These observations were made

in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving

Section 498A IPC.” (Emphasis supplied)

15. It was held in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC

OnLine SC 759:2024 INSC 369 that asking a person to face criminal

11

2026:HHC:7-DB

allegations without any specific instance of criminal misconduct

amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. It was observed:

“18. The plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet

papers indicates that the allegations levelled by the First

Informant are quite vague, general and sweeping,

specifying no instances of criminal conduct. It is also

pertinent to note that in the FIR, no specific date or time of

the alleged offence/offences has been disclosed. Even the

police thought it fit to drop the proceedings against the

other members of the Appellants' family. Thus, we are of

the view that the FIR lodged by Respondent No. 2 was

nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition & also

the domestic violence case.

25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general

and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any

specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but an

abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to

subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to thorough

scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of

truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with

the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal

charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a

matrimonial dispute.” (Emphasis supplied)

16. It was further held that in matrimonial disputes, the

parents, including the close relatives, make a mountain out of a

molehill, and every matrimonial conduct amounting to nuisance

does not constitute cruelty. It was observed: -

“32. Many times, the parents, including the close relatives

of the wife, make a mountain out of a molehill. Instead of

salvaging the situation and making every possible

endeavour to save the marriage, their action, either due to

ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the

husband and his family members, brings about the

12

2026:HHC:7-DB

destruction of the marriage over trivial issues. The first

thing that comes to mind for the wife, her parents and her

relatives is the Police as if the Police is the panacea of all

evil. No sooner does the matter reach the Police than even

if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the

spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a

sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting

one another. Tolerance of each other's faults, to a certain

bearable extent, has to be inherent in every marriage.

Petty quibbles and trifling differences are mundane

matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of

proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in

heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must

be weighed from that point of view in determining what

constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping

in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties,

their character and social status. A very technical and

hyper-sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for

the very institution of marriage. In matrimonial disputes,

the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with

such venom in their hearts that they do not think even for

a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then

what would be the effect on their children? Divorce plays a

very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is

concerned. The only reason why we are saying so is that,

instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the

initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about

nothing but hatred for each other. There may be cases of

genuine ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and

his family members towards the wife. The degree of such

ill-treatment or harassment may vary. However, the

Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of

last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty

and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be utilised

for the purpose of holding the husband to ransom so that

he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her

parents, relatives or friends. In all cases where the wife

complains of harassment or ill-treatment,

Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically.

No FIR is complete without Sections  506(2) and 323 of

13

2026:HHC:7-DB

the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct which may cause

annoyance to the other may not amount to cruelty. Mere

trivial irritations and quarrels between spouses, which

happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount

to cruelty”

17. Similarly, it was held in Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v.

State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 127: 2024 (2) SCR 252 that the

phenomenon of false implication by a general omnibus

allegation in the case of a matrimonial dispute is not unknown to

the Court. It was observed: -

“14. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is

significant merit in the submissions of the Learned

Counsel for the Appellants. A bare perusal of the

complaint, statement of witnesses and the charge sheet

shows that the allegations against the Appellants are

wholly general and omnibus in nature; even if they are

taken in their entirety, they do not prima facie make out a

case against the Appellants. The material on record

neither discloses any particulars of the offences alleged

nor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned

to any of the Appellants in the commission of the offences.

15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of general

omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes

is not unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar alias

Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, this Court dealt

with a similar case wherein the allegations made by the

complainant-wife against her in-laws u/s. 498A and

others were vague and general, lacking any specific role

and particulars. The court proceeded to quash the FIR

against the accused persons and noted that such a

situation, if left unchecked, would result in the abuse of

the process of law.

xxxx

14

2026:HHC:7-DB

17. Considering the dicta in Mahmood Ali (supra), we find

that the High Court, in this case, has failed to exercise due

care and has mechanically permitted the criminal

proceedings to continue despite specifically finding that

the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. The

Appellants herein approached the High Court on  inter

alia grounds that the proceedings were re-initiated on

vexatious grounds and even highlighted the

commencement of divorce proceedings by Respondent No.

2. In these peculiar circumstances, the High Court had a

duty to consider the allegations with great care and

circumspection so as to protect against the danger of

unjust prosecution.”

18. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC

OnLine SC 2621, that general and vague allegations of cruelty

made against the husband and his relatives are not sufficient to

constitute cruelty. It was observed: -

“10.1 The tendency to make general, vague, and omnibus

allegations is noticed by this Court in many decisions.

In Usha Chakraborty v. State of W.B. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90,

this court observed that:

“16… the respondent alleged commission of

offences under Sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467,

468, 420 and 120B, IPC against the appellants. A

bare perusal of the said allegation and the

ingredients to attract them, as adverted to

hereinbefore, would reveal that the allegations are

vague and they do not carry the essential

ingredients to constitute the alleged offences…. The

ingredients to attract the alleged offence referred to

hereinbefore and the nature of the allegations

contained in the application filed by the respondent

would undoubtedly make it clear that the

respondent had failed to make specific allegations

15

2026:HHC:7-DB

against the appellants herein in respect of the

aforesaid offences. The factual position thus would

reveal that the genesis as well as the purpose of

criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid

incident, and further that the dispute involved is

essentially of a civil nature. The appellants and the

respondents have given a cloak of a criminal offence

in the issue…”

10.2 Similarly, dealing with allegations lacking in

particulars and details, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti (2009) 10

SCC 184, this court observed that:

“7. …what strikes us is that there are no particulars

given as to the date on which the ornaments were

handed over, as to the exact number of ornaments

or their description and as to the date when the

ornaments were asked back and were refused. Even

the weight of the ornaments is not mentioned in the

complaint, and it is a general and vague complaint

that the ornaments were sometimes given in the

custody of the appellants, and they were not

returned. What strikes us more is that even in Para

10 of the complaint, where the complainant says

that she asked for her clothes and ornaments, which

were given to the accused, and they refused to give

these back, the date is significantly absent.”

xxxx

12. The complaint also refers to a small incident where the

complainant's brother accompanied her to the

matrimonial house when appellants no. 1 and 3 are alleged

to have refused to take her back, but on persuasion by her

brother, she was allowed to stay. There is also a vague

allegation that, when the complainant gave birth to a

second child, appellants 1 and 2 came

and “quarrelled” with the complainant, her brother, and

her parents and threatened them. This Court had occasion

to examine the phenomenon of general and omnibus

allegations in the cases of matrimonial disputes.

In Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy  v. State of A.P. 2024 SCC

OnLine SC 127, this Court observed that:

16

2026:HHC:7-DB

“14. …A bare perusal of the complaint, statement of

witnesses and the charge sheet shows that the

allegations against the Appellants are wholly

general and omnibus in nature; even if they are

taken in their entirety, they do not prima facie make

out a case against the Appellants. The material on

record neither discloses any particulars of the

offences alleged nor discloses the specific

role/allegations assigned to any of the Appellants in

the commission of the offences.

15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of

general omnibus allegations in the course of

matrimonial disputes is not unknown to this Court.

In Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam  v. State of

Bihar, this Court dealt with a similar case wherein

the allegations made by the complainant-wife

against her in-laws u/s. 498A and others were vague

and general, lacking any specific role and

particulars. The court proceeded to quash the FIR

against the accused persons and noted that such a

situation, if left unchecked, would result in the

abuse of the process of law.”

xxxx

13.1 In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599,

this Court noticed the injustice that may be caused when

parties are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial

based on general and omnibus allegations. The relevant

portion of the observation is as under:

“11. … In recent times, matrimonial litigation in the

country has also increased significantly, and there is

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-A IPC as

instruments to settle personal scores against the

husband and his relatives.

18. … upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated

1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are

17

2026:HHC:7-DB

levelled against the appellants. The complainant

alleged that “all the accused harassed her mentally

and threatened her with terminating her pregnancy.

Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations

have been made against either of the appellants

herein, i.e. none of the appellants has 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… However, as far

as the appellants are concerned, the allegations

made against them, being general and omnibus, do

not warrant prosecution.

21. …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 a 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.”

19. This position was reiterated in Dara Lakshmi

Narayana v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682, wherein

it was observed:

18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations

made by respondent No. 2 are vague and omnibus. Other

than claiming that appellant No. 1 harassed her and that

appellant Nos. 2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent

No. 2 has not provided any specific details or described any

particular instance of harassment. She has also not

mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the

18

2026:HHC:7-DB

alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks

concrete and precise allegations.

20. This position was reiterated in Geddam Jhansi v. State

of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263, wherein it was observed:

“31. Invoking criminal process is a serious matter with

penal consequences involving coercive measures, which

can be permitted only when the specific act(s) which

constitute offences punishable under the Penal Code or

any other penal statute are alleged or attributed to the

accused and a prima facie case is made out. It applies with

equal force when criminal laws are invoked in domestic

disputes. Criminalising domestic disputes without specific

allegations and credible materials to support the same

may have disastrous consequences for the institution of

family, which is built on the premise of love, affection,

cordiality and mutual trust. The institution of family

constitutes the core of human society. Domestic

relationships, such as those between family members, are

guided by deeply ingrained social values and cultural

expectations. These relationships are often viewed as

sacred, demanding a higher level of respect, commitment,

and emotional investment compared to other social or

professional associations. For the aforesaid reason, the

preservation of family relationships has always been

emphasised. Thus, when family relationships are sought

to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings,

rupturing the family bond, courts should be circumspect

and judicious and should allow invocation of the criminal

process only when there are specific allegations with

supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal

offences.

32. We have to keep in mind that in the context of

matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as such in

the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic

violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other

members of the family who do not come to the rescue of

the complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged

19

2026:HHC:7-DB

incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itself

constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts

attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and

relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to

exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily

mean that such domestic disputes should be given the

colour of criminality.

33. It goes without saying that genuine cases of cruelty and

violence in the domestic sphere, which do happen, ought

to be handled with utmost sensitivity. Domestic violence

typically happens within the four walls of the house and

not in the public gaze. Therefore, such violence is not

noticed by the public at large, except perhaps by the

immediate neighbours. Thus, providing visible evidence

by the victim of domestic violence may not be easily

forthcoming and producing direct evidence may be hard

and arduous, which does not necessarily mean that

domestic violence does not occur. In fact, to deal with this

pernicious phenomenon, stringent statutes like the

Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been

enacted with a very expansive meaning and scope of what

amounts to domestic violence. Since violence perpetrated

within the domestic sphere by close relatives is now

criminalised, entailing serious consequences on the

perpetrators, the courts have to be careful while dealing

with such cases by examining whether there are specific

allegations with instances against the perpetrators and

not generalised allegations. The purpose and mandate of

the law to protect the victims of domestic violence is of

paramount importance, and as such, a balance has to be

struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are brought to

book, all the family members or relatives are not

indiscriminately brought within the criminal net in a

sweeping manner.

34. For a matrimonial relationship which is founded on

the basis of cordiality and trust to turn sour to an extent to

make a partner hurl allegations of domestic violence and

harassment against the other partner, would normally not

happen at the spur of the moment, and such an

20

2026:HHC:7-DB

acrimonious relationship would develop only in the course

of time. Accordingly, such a situation would be the

culmination of a series of acts which turn, otherwise, an

amicable relationship into a fractured one. Thus, in such

cases involving allegations of domestic violence or

harassment, there would normally be a series of offending

acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the

complainant against the perpetrators in specific terms to

rope such perpetrators in the criminal proceedings sought

to be initiated against them. Thus, mere general

allegations of harassment without pointing out the

specifics against such perpetrators would not suffice, as is

the case in respect of the present appellants.

35. We are, thus, of the view that in criminal cases relating

to domestic violence, the complaints and charges should

be specific, as far as possible, as against each and every

member of the family who is accused of such offences and

sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to

misuse of the stringent criminal process by

indiscriminately dragging all the members of the family.

There may be situations where some of the family

members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence

or harassment perpetrated on the victim and may not

extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not

necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of

domestic violence unless the circumstances clearly

indicate their involvement and instigation. Hence,

implicating all such relatives without making specific

allegations and attributing offending acts to them and

proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that

they were complicit and had actively collaborated with the

perpetrators of domestic violence would amount to abuse

of the process of law.”

21. The prosecution evidence has to be appreciated as per

the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

21

2026:HHC:7-DB

22. The informant’s initial statement (Ext.PW1/A) does

not mention any act of cruelty. It only mentions that the victim

angrily told the informant that she had no relation with him, and

when he made inquiries, she told him that the informant had

pushed her away. He counselled the accused. The accused had

earlier beaten and harassed the victim. This statement does not

specify the date of the beatings or the nature of the harassment.

The informant made a general statement that the accused had

beaten and harassed the deceased, which is not sufficient as per

the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

23. Informant Suresh Kumar (PW1) stated that the

deceased was annoyed and did not talk to him or his wife. She

said after repeated asking that her life was ruined by marrying

her to the accused. Vipin Kumar (accused) used to beat and

maltreat her. She also told the informant that the accused had

demanded money from her for the construction of his house. The

informant advised Sunita and the accused to maintain a

respectful and harmonious relationship. The accused assured the

informant not to beat Sunita. The accused had neglected Sunita

from the very beginning. He used to leave her in her matrimonial

home. He started beating her 5-6 months before the birth of her

22

2026:HHC:7-DB

daughter. He had left her in her matrimonial home during her

pregnancy and took her after 11 months of the birth of the child.

The accused did not pay any maintenance to her.

24. The statement made by him regarding the beatings

given by the accused to the deceased, pressurising her to bring

money for the construction of the house, leaving her in her

matrimonial home during the pregnancy and beating her 5-6

months before her death is clearly an improvement because such

facts were not mentioned by him in his initial statement. He was

duly confronted with his previous statement recorded by the

police, which was proved by SI Mohinder Singh (PW10), who

specifically stated in his cross-examination that no demand for

money, or no complaint of improper maintenance of the

deceased, was revealed to him during the investigation.

Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the informant’s

statement.

25. The informant admitted in his cross-examination

that he had not made any complaint to the police or the

Panchayat regarding the maltreatment or beatings given to the

deceased. He volunteered to say that he wanted to protect the

honour of the family. This is no explanation at all. His daughter

23

2026:HHC:7-DB

was beaten and subjected to cruelty, and it is difficult to believe

that he would have remained silent or allowed the victim to

remain in her matrimonial home to endanger her life after the

disclosure of any cruelty. He did not state that he had made any

payment to the accused pursuant to the demand made by her.

Hence, his contemporaneous conduct does not support his

statement regarding the cruelty, and it is difficult to rely upon his

testimony to conclude that the deceased was subjected to cruelty.

26. Raj Kumari (PW2) stated that the accused did not

treat the deceased properly. He used to leave her in her

matrimonial home. He left the deceased in her matrimonial home

when she was two months pregnant. The accused took her with

him when the child was 11 months old. The accused kept the

deceased nicely for one month and thereafter left her in her

matrimonial home by saying that he was unable to meet her

expenses. The accused did not pay anything at the time of

delivery of the child. The deceased informed her that the accused

had beaten her (the deceased). She (Raj Kumari) and the

informant went to the house of the accused. The deceased did not

talk to them. Deceased revealed on their asking that she

(deceased) was beaten by the accused, and she (deceased) had

24

2026:HHC:7-DB

sustained injuries. Raj Kumari questioned the accused, and the

accused apologised. She stated in her cross-examination that she

did not remember having disclosed to the police about leaving

the deceased in her matrimonial home, non-payment of the

maintenance or raising the demand. She volunteered to say that

she was perplexed due to the death of her daughter. The fact that

this witness has not told anything about the police regarding the

harassment and leaving the deceased in her matrimonial home

shows that she was improving upon her earlier version, and such

a statement could not have been relied upon.

27. Mohinder Kumar (PW3) is the cousin of the deceased.

He stated that the informant used to tell him about the demand

for dowry and the beatings given to her (deceased) by the

accused. He told his uncle Suresh to visit the house of the accused

and advise him not to harass and beat the deceased. He stated in

his cross-examination that he did not remember telling the

police about the deceased remaining in her matrimonial home for

11 months. He had told the police about the demand for dowry,

but it was not mentioned. He admitted that he never went to the

house of the accused to talk to him.

25

2026:HHC:7-DB

28. The testimony of this witness is not satisfactory. He

has not given the particulars and nature of the demand for dowry.

He has not mentioned the date when the deceased had told him

about the beatings given to her. He did not visit the matrimonial

home of the deceased even after coming to know that she was

being beaten. He is a cousin of the deceased and is interested in

her welfare. The fact that he never visited the deceased after

coming to know of the maltreatment would make it suspicious

that the deceased had narrated any incident to him.

29. Pinki Devi (PW4) is the neighbour of the accused. She

specifically denied that she had not heard the noise of the quarrel

on 07.05.2012 or before that. She was permitted to be cross-

examined, and she denied the previous statement recorded by the

police. She admitted in her cross-examination by learned defence

counsel that the accused had accompanied her and the deceased

to the hospital and remained with them throughout the night.

Sunita Devi (deceased) used to meet her regularly, and she had

cordial relation with the accused. The deceased never mentioned

any harassment by the accused.

30. The testimony of this witness does not support the

prosecution's case. She is an immediate neighbour of the

26

2026:HHC:7-DB

deceased and known to her. Her statement that no complaint was

made to her by the deceased would falsify the prosecution's case

that the accused was harassing her.

31. There is no other evidence to support the

prosecution's case. No injuries were detected by the Medical

Officer during the postmortem, which falsifies the prosecution's

version that the accused had beaten the deceased on the night of

the incident or before that.

32. Learned Trial Court was impressed by the consistency

in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, but failed to

notice that the informant had not mentioned to the police in his

initial statement about the cruelty or the harassment. The

mother and cousin of the deceased had also improved upon their

version and introduced the fact about the harassment in the

statement on oath. The medical evidence also did not support the

prosecution's version regarding the beating because no such

injury was found on the person of the deceased. Therefore, the

prosecution's version was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt,

and the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing

the accused.

33. No other point was urged.

27

2026:HHC:7-DB

34. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and

the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court are

ordered to be set aside, and the appellant/accused is acquitted of

the charged offence. The fine, if deposited, be refunded to the

appellant/accused after the expiry of the period of limitation, in

case no appeal is preferred, and in case of appeal, the same will

be dealt with as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India.

35. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code

of Criminal Procedure [Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], the appellant/accused is

directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with

one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned

Registrar (Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial Court, within four

weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation

that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this

judgment, or on grant of the leave, the appellant/accused, on

receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

28

2026:HHC:7-DB

36. A copy of this judgment, along with the records of the

learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. Pending

miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

(Rakesh Kainthla)

Judge

1

st

January, 2026

(Nikita)