Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 30148
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) QUASH THE FIR DATED 25.09.2024 IN CR.NO.151/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA (ANNEXURE-A).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.S. Naganand, Sumana Naganand
For the Respondents: B.N. Jagadeesha, C.H. Jadhav, Chethan Jadhav
In matrimonial disputes, criminal proceedings against the husband's relatives should be quashed when the allegations in the FIR are general and omnibus, lacking specific details regarding their individual involvement, as such complaints often constitute an abuse of the process of law.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 323, 307, 504, 506, 149 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Matrimonial dispute originating from marital discord - Allegations against in-laws regarding harassment - Need for specific and distinct allegations - Invocation of inherent powers for preventing abuse of process of law. (Paras 4, 8, 9, 10)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - General omnibus allegations against relatives - When allegations of harassment are vague and fail to attribute specific roles to extended family members in a matrimonial dispute, such prosecution constitutes an abuse of the process of law. Reliance placed on established jurisprudence cautioning against roping in distant relatives without specific instances of involvement. (Paras 9, 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of an FIR registered for various offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act arising from a matrimonial dispute. The complaint alleged harassment, physical assault, and dowry demands. The petitioners argued that the allegations were vague, belated, and aimed at dragging distant family members into litigation. The respondent contended that the investigation should continue at least against the immediate parties involved in the alleged physical assault and cruelty.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that while there were specific allegations of physical violence against the husband and father-in-law, the allegations against the other relatives were general and omnibus in nature. The court held that permitting the investigation to continue against those lacking specific roles would be an abuse of the process of law, thereby requiring the partial quashing of the proceedings.
Issues: Whether the registration of a crime against all family members of the husband, based on allegations related to a matrimonial dispute, warrants immediate quashing of the entire proceedings or if investigation should be confined to specific individuals.
Ratio Decidendi: In accordance with settled legal principles, criminal courts must exercise extreme caution to prevent the misuse of matrimonial laws. Where complaints are found to contain only general, omnibus allegations against secondary relatives without assigning specific roles, the continuation of criminal proceedings against such individuals constitutes an abuse of the process of law. However, where ingredients of specific offences are prima facie made out against primary accused, the investigation must be allowed to proceed.
Result: Petition allowed in part; proceedings against some petitioners quashed while investigation against the primary accused persists.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the factual background of the matrimonial discord and registered fir. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 8) |
| 2. conflict between parties regarding the necessity of continuing criminal investigation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. prohibition of omnibus allegations against relatives to prevent abuse of legal process. (Para 9) |
| 4. distinguishing between specific criminal allegations and general harassment during investigation. (Para 10 , 11) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 are before the Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.151/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A , 323, 307, 504, 506 and 149 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Heard the learned senior counsel, Sri.S.S. Naganand appearing for the petitioners; learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, Sri.B.N. Jagadeesha appearing for respondent No.1 and learned senior counsel, Sri.C.H. Jadhav appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:
3.1. Before embarking upon the consideration of the issue in the lis, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the protagonists to the lis. Petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is the husband of the complainant. The other petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 8 are the members of petitioner No.1's family or distant relatives as the case would be. Their description would not be necessary at this juncture.
3.2. Petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and the complainant get married on 18.11.2020. The marriage between petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and respondent No.2/complainant appears to have floundered and on floundering of the relationship, the complainant is said to have deserted accused No.1 and began to reside separately. Petitioner No.1/accused No.1 institutes proceedings for annulment of marriage, after which the impugned crime comes to be registered by the complainant. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted an interim order of stay of further proceedings and therefore, the investigation has not yet proceeded.
4. The learned senior counsel Sri.S.S. Naganand appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that there is no allegation that would touch upon the ingredients of any of the offences so alleged against these petitioners. They are without any rhyme or reason dragged into the web of proceedings. He would take this Court through the complaint seeking to demonstrate that the events that have happened in the year 2022 are projected to become a crime in the year 2024. If at all the complainant had been assaulted, the complainant ought to have registered a complaint immediately. It is registered long after the alleged incident of assault. He would further contend that all other members of the family who are not even connected with the life of the complainant are dragged into the web of proceedings. He would therefore, seek quashment of the entire proceedings on the aforesaid score.
5. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri.C.H. Jadhav appearing for the complainant would vehemently refute his submission in contending that the matter is stayed at the stage of investigation itself and there is an allegation of trying to strangulate the wife and therefore the ingredients of the offences are clearly made out at least against accused Nos.1 and 2 - the husband and the father-in-law of the complainant, respectively. He would submit that the others have instigated the manner in which the father-in-law or the husband has behaved against the complainant. Therefore, would seek dismissal of the petition in its entirety.
6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, Sri.B.N. Jagadeesha, appearing for respondent No.1 - State would toe the lines of the learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent in submitting that investigation would be required in the least in the case at hand.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsel and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and hav
