ORAL ORDER

Petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.42 of 2025 registered for offences punishable under Section 85 of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 .

2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The 2^nd respondent is the complainant. The complainant and the accused No.1/1^st petitioner get married on 27-2-2017. From the wedlock a son is born on 10-6-2022. The relationship between the two flounders. The floundering of the relationship leads the 2^nd respondent/complainant to shift to Bangalore to her parents house, after leaving the matrimonial house at Haryana. On 26-4-2024, the husband institutes proceedings for dissolution of marriage and further a proceeding under the G and WC 83 of 2024 seeking custody of the minor child. After these proceedings, the 2^nd respondent-complainant registers a complaint. Thereafter, several communications, correspondences, exchange of legal notices happen between the 1^st petitioner and the complainant. Mediation was also advised and on 10-6-2025 and 11-6-2025 efforts to mediate were taken up and failed. After all the aforesaid proceedings, the 2^nd respondent registers a fresh complaint before the jurisdictional police, which now becomes a crime in Crime No.42 of 2025. It is this that is called in question by the 1^st petitioner/husband and others, accused No.2, 3 and 4, father- in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law.

3. Heard Sri Hitesh Gowda B.J., learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri B N Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Nagaraj R, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that a perusal at the complaint would not indicate an iota of offence against any of the accused. After the mediation talks failed for over 6 months, the crime comes to be registered. Accordingly, seeks quashment of the proceedings.

5. Both the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for 2^nd respondent, would in unison, refute the submissions contending that the matter is still at the stage of investigation and the harassment by the husband and the in-laws is clearly brought out in the complaint, as such, investigation in the least must be permitted in the case at hand. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Since the entire issue has now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The crux of the complaint lies in paragraphs 20 to 26, they read as follows:

“…. …. ….

20. On January 24^th 2024, I received call from my husband, he asked me to return back to home and I refused to the same as I was stress by his treatment was utterly inhumane. But to my surprise shock my husband and his family members visited to my Uncle Mr Om Prakash's house and started spreading false information and tarnish my character. My husband and his family members complained that I'm not a good daughter-in-law or wife and I was been raised poorly and I'm very disrespectful towards elders and also made false allegations on my father too. Further they went to Mr. Ganda Uncle's residence for a panchayat, and they summoned my uncle, Mr. Om Prakash. During this gathering, they once again set out to defame me and my parents, subjecting me to immense social pressure. Further my Husband started sharing the voice conversations which was been recorded without my knowledge, to my friend and my father's friends, his act of unauthorized sharing of our private dialogue has compounded my emotional distress, making me feel further violated and exposed. My Husband and his family members h