Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court, by an order dated 10 June 2025, partly allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed the FIR registered as Crime No. 58/2024 dated 02.12.2024 insofar as it concerned the petitioners who were the complainant’s in-laws (mother-in-law and father-in-law), but allowed the investigation to continue against the husband.
The Court observed that while the complaint was replete with specific, grave, and corroborated allegations against the husband, the allegations against the in-laws were general and lacked material to constitute cognizable offences.
Facts
The complainant married the first petitioner (husband) on 23 August 2023 after an acquaintance through mutual friends in 2022. However, within a year, the relationship broke down. The husband filed for annulment of marriage, and the complainant initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.
Thereafter, on 2 December 2024, the complainant lodged a detailed complaint alleging multiple instances of physical abuse, mental harassment, forced unnatural sex, extramarital affairs, and abusive behaviour by the husband. The complaint also alleged that her in-laws sought to restrict her freedom, pressured her to have a child, interfered with her dance career, and instigated the husband to harass her. These allegations culminated in registration of FIR under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, and 85 of the BNS, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Within 10 days, the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR.
Issues
- Whether the FIR disclosed prima facie ingredients of offences under BNS and Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners?
- Whether continuation of proceedings against the mother-in-law and father-in-law amounted to abuse of process?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that the complaint was frivolous and a result of strained matrimonial relations. They contended that there were no specific allegations amounting to cruelty or unlawful demand against the in-laws. As for the husband, they argued that the allegations of addiction, gambling, and extramarital affairs, even if taken at face value, did not constitute cruelty under Section 85 of BNS. They further pointed out that the complaint absurdly focused on trivial matters like the husband treating the household cat better than the complainant.
Respondent’s Arguments
The complainant, through counsel, submitted that the allegations against the husband were serious, repeated, and substantiated. She produced the discharge summary dated 10 November 2024, which recorded injuries due to assault by the husband. WhatsApp chats were also placed on record showing abusive and profane language used by the husband, evidence of extramarital relations, and coercive behaviour. As to the in-laws, it was contended that they interfered in her personal autonomy, disrespected her profession, and exerted pressure to bear a child against her wishes. Their instigation and continued humiliation amounted to active participation in the acts of cruelty.
Analysis of the Law
The Court referred to Sections 85 and 86 of the BNS, which mirror Sections 498A IPC and define cruelty as any wilful conduct that causes grave injury (mental or physical) or harassment related to unlawful dowry demands. The Court held that the allegations in the complaint, when read as a whole, clearly met the legal standard of cruelty and harassment under these sections with respect to the husband.
It also examined Sections 114 and 115 of BNS (akin to Sections 319 and 323 IPC) regarding hurt, and Sections 351 and 352 BNS (equivalent to Section 504 IPC) concerning insult intended to provoke breach of peace. Based on the discharge summary and the description of assault, the Court found that these provisions were attracted against the husband.
However, the Court held that the complaint failed to disclose any specific, overt acts committed by the in-laws which would bring them within the scope of any of the alleged offences. It reiterated that FIRs cannot become instruments for settling scores by arraying every family member without basis.
Precedent Analysis
- Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599: The Supreme Court held that general and omnibus allegations against in-laws in matrimonial disputes are not sufficient to sustain prosecution under Section 498A IPC. Allegations must be specific and based on clear material.
- Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472: The Court observed that Section 498A, though well-intentioned, is often misused to rope in every relative of the husband. Arrests and prosecutions without due diligence cause undue hardship.
- Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273: The judgment cautioned against routine arrests in matrimonial disputes and emphasized the need to prevent arbitrary misuse of criminal law provisions.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the complaint contained elaborate, disturbing, and medically corroborated allegations against the husband, including physical assault, coercion, and psychological torment. The chats submitted with the objections further demonstrated the husband’s abusive conduct. The ingredients of cruelty, voluntarily causing hurt, and intentional insult were therefore clearly established, warranting continuation of investigation against him.
As regards the in-laws, the Court concluded that the references to them were sporadic, vague, and lacked evidentiary support. Their role appeared to be limited to routine family disagreements, and no overt criminal conduct was alleged with clarity. Accordingly, further investigation against them would constitute abuse of process.
Conclusion
The Court quashed the FIR only insofar as it related to the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant. The investigation was permitted to continue solely against the husband. The Court’s interim stay earlier granted on investigation against the petitioners was vacated to the extent of the husband. The judgment underscores the necessity of prima facie material and specificity in criminal complaints, especially in matrimonial contexts.
Implications
This judgment reiterates judicial caution in matrimonial cases, ensuring that criminal law is not used as a tool of harassment against in-laws without specific allegations. It balances the complainant’s right to redress genuine abuse with the need to prevent misuse of criminal law provisions. The decision is a significant reaffirmation of the principles laid down in Kahkashan Kausar, Arnesh Kumar, and Rajesh Sharma.
