In matrimonial disputes, sweeping and omnibus allegations of dowry demand or cruelty against the husband's family, lacking specific overt acts or incidents, do not sustain criminal prosecution and should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC to prevent the abuse of legal process.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.23089/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 506 AND 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 (ANNEXURE-A) REGISTERED ON THE BASIS OF CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE BASAWESHWARANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU IN CRIME NO.333/2018; b) QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE BASAWESHVARANAGARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, DATED 12.08.2021, IN CR.NO.333/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 506 AND 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 (ANNEXURE-B) NOW PENDING IN C.C.NO.23089/2021 BEFORE THE XXIV ACMM COURT BENGALURU.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CAV ORDER

The petitioners/accused 2 to 4 are at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.23089 of 2021 pending before the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out of crime in Crime No.333 of 2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A , 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard Smt. Keerthi Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Desiree M.Pais, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - Accused Nos.1 and 4 are the son and daughter respectively of petitioners 1 and 2. 2nd respondent is the complainant, daughter in-law of petitioners 1 and 2. Accused No.1 and the complainant got married on 20-04-2018. Barely 6 months after the marriage, the relationship between accused No.1 and the complainant floundered. The floundering of relationship between the two leads the complainant to the jurisdictional Police to register a complaint alleging cruelty by the husband, accused No.1 and mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law on the plea of demand of dowry. This becomes a crime in Crime No.333 of 2018. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against four persons as accused, to be tried for the aforesaid offences. The petitioners, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law are now before the Court calling in question registration of criminal case in C.C.No.23089 of 2021 and its continuance.

4. The learned counsel Smt. Keerthi Krishna Reddy appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the relationship between accused No.1 and the complainant has failed on its own accord. The petitioners who are mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law who do not reside with the complainant are drawn into the web of proceedings without any rhyme or reason. She would take this Court to the documents appended to the petition seeking to demonstrate that there is not an iota of ingredient of the offences so alleged against these petitioners. She would contend that the husband is not before the Court. It is for him to defend the action of any allegation made by the complainant, his wife. She would seek to place reliance upon plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court on the issue, to buttress her submission that permitting further trial in the case would become an abuse of the process of law.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant would vehemently re