ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are accused 1 to 12 seeking quashing of the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.25260/2025 arising out of an FIR in Crime No.165/2024 lodged by the 1st respondent – Police, pursuant to a complaint given by the 2nd respondent – de facto complainant for alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act.

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:-

The 2nd respondent – de facto complainant who was residing along with her parents at Bangalore got married to the 1st petitioner on 02.05.2023 at Bangalore. It is contended that none of the petitioners are residents of Bangalore and that all of them are residing at Pune and Bombay at the addresses mentioned in the cause title to the writ petition.

It is contended by the petitioners that the 1st petitioner was residing and working in USA at the time of his marriage with the 2nd respondent, who went to the matrimonial home at Pune and stayed there till 17.05.2023, after which, she came back to her parental home. Thereafter, on 16.07.2023, the 2nd respondent joined the petitioner in USA and returned to her parental home at Bangalore on 16.01.2024 and was there till March, 2024. It is further contended that between March, 2024 and May, 2024, the 2nd respondent traveled between her parental home at Bangalore and the matrimonial home at Pune and finally, returned back to Bangalore to her parental house on 05.05.2024. Petitioners further contend that on 28.11.2024, the 1st petitioner initiated divorce proceedings before the Family court, Pune, against the 2nd respondent, who thereafter lodged the impugned complaint against the petitioners before the 1st respondent – police authorities, who conducted investigation and filed the impugned charge sheet pending in C.C.No.25260/2025, which is assailed in the present petition.

Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for 1st respondent – State and 2nd respondent – party, in-person and perused the material on record.

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the impugned complaint, FIR and charge sheet material in order to contend that the same do not disclose the commission of any offences by the petitioners. It was submitted that the 2nd respondent who is in the midst of matrimonial disputes / proceedings between herself and 1st petitioner – husband has filed the impugned complaint with a malafide intention and ulterior / oblique motive of wreaking vengeance against the petitioners by giving a purely matrimonial disputes a cloak of criminality which amounts to abuse of process of law and the same deserves to be quashed. It is also submitted that the necessary ingredients constituting the offence under Section 354 IPC had not been made out as against the 4th petitioner – accused No.4, who was the paternal grand father of the 1st petitioner and the impugned proceedings against him for the said offence also deserve to be quashed. It was therefore submitted that the impugned proceedings against all the petitioners was nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same deserve to be quashed by placing reliance upon the following judgments:-

(i) Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, (2025) 3 SCC 756;

(ii) Digambar v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836;

(iii) Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735;

(iv) Kamal v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1726;

(v) Ghanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301;

(vi) Sanjay D. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2090;

(vii) Abuzar Ahmed v. State of Karnataka, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 54;

(viii) Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P., (2025) 2 SCC 604.

Per contra, learned HCGP as well as the 2nd respondent – party, in-person would submit that the various contentions urged by the petitioner