***

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. –

1. Prayer in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of criminal complaint No. COMI/664/2018 dated 21.05.2018 titled Gurpreet Kaur Vs. Parminder Singh under Sections 498-A, 120-B Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, including order dated 07.09.2019 of learned JMIC, Amritsar, vide which petitioners were summoned to face trial under the aforesaid sections.

2. The facts, as narrated in the complaint dated 21.05.2018 under Sections 406, 498-A, 120-B Indian Penal Code filed against the petitioners and two others are that complainant was married with accused Parminder Singh on 22.12.1996 at Ludhiana according to Sikh rites and traditions. After marriage, both lived together as husband and wife at Amritsar. Out of the wedlock, three children Harleen Kaur aged 20 years, Harkunwar Singh aged 15 year and Shevangi aged 14 years were born. Though the marriage was performed with great pomp and show and sufficient stree dhan in the shape of car, gold jewellery, valuable clothes, cash etc. were given to accused No. 1, his parents, sister and other relatives on demand, behaviour of accused No. 1 and his family was cruel and hostile from the very inception. They demanded more dowry and often taunted complainant in connection with dowry demands. Complainant was not allowed to use her stree dhan, which was misappropriated, on which account, she earlier filed a complaint in the Court at Amritsar which was withdrawn on account on a mutual compromise. As per compromise, accused was to pay Rs.6,00,000/- as annual school fee of both the kids, who were studying in Lawrance School at Sanawar and Rs.15,000/- per month to each child, for other expenses. Accused also agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as monthly expenses to the complainant and to live with her in harmony. However, after withdrawal of the complaint, accused paid maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant and Rs.15,000/- each to both the kids only for one month. Behaviour of accused No. 1 and 2 became more cruel and harsh towards the complainant. Accused No. 1 stopped paying her maintenance. He along with his father, mother and sister started harassing her for bringing more dowry from her parents and refused to pay the school fee of the children. Accused picked up quarrels on small matters and beat the complainant in front of her kids, abusing her and levelling defamatory allegations against her with the intention that complainant and her children leave the matrimonial home.

3. She further alleged that on 13.03.2017, mother-in-law of the complainant died but things did not change. Accused No. 3, Sonia started residing permanently in the matrimonial home to harass the complainant even more and her life was made living hell by accused Nos. 3 and 4. She was refused entry into the kitchen and threatened with death if she dared to enter the kitchen. Since April 2017, she had not entered the kitchen of her house alone and if she did, she was always escorted by one of the accused. She was forced to live in a single room measuring 10’X10’ along with her two minor children, though the house was of 9000 sq. yards. Complainant tolerated this to save her home and borrowed money from her father to pay the school fee for kids. She was managing herself and the children by running a small bakery in rented property. She alleged that on 17.06.2017, her children were hungry and asked her to give something to eat, upon which she went to the kitchen to cook food but within 05 minutes, accused No. 1, who was drunk along with his father, sister and Bua Kuldeep Kaur, who was also living in the matrimonial home, entered the kitchen and without giving her any warning, started beating her with a brick bat, shouting “how dare you enter the kitchen”. Complainant cried for help but none helped her. Her minor son Harkunwar came for help and saved her from the accused, who intended to kill her. Despite her parents intervention, the accused were adamant. They wanted her to leave the matrimonial home along with her minor kids threatening to poison her one day or to sell the matrimonial home.

4. Preliminary evidence in the shape of statements of the complainant, her son Harkunwar Singh and Bhupender Singh was recorded by learned JMIC, Amritsar, who vide impugned order dated 07.09.2019 summoned the petitioners to face trial under Sections 498-A IPC. No sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused No. 3-Sonia and accused No. 4-Kuldeep Lamba was made out and the complaint against these two was dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that petitioner No. 1 was the father-in-law of complainant, who was now 82 years of age, suffering from various age related ailments, including diabetes, hyper tension etc. He had two children, his son petitioner No. 2 was married with the complainant/respondent No. 2 and his daughter Sonia was also married and living with her family at New Delhi. Ever since marriage, petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 were leading a turbulent life. Behaviour of respondent No. 2 was extremely rude and cruel towards the petitioner No.1, father-in-law and his wife, who passed away in 2017, unable to bear the atrocities. Attitude of respondent No. 2 from the beginning of her marriage was hostile and she had started her own business. Due to the troubled relationship between petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2, petitioner No. 1 and his late wife were subjected to great humiliation, harassment and mental torture in the evening of their life. Petitioner No. 1 offered his son and respondent No. 2 and to live separately and allow them her to live in peace but she was adamant to stay in the property which was his self acquired property. Earlier also, a complaint under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 34 IPC was filed against petitioners and other family members but on 30.07.2014, the complaint was withdrawn. A complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was also filed against the petitioners and others, which too was withdrawn and later filed again. In that complaint, the daughter of petitioner No. 1 was discharged. The prayer of respondent No. 2 for a restraint order qua alienation of the house was also declined. Besides this, a suit for possession of the house in Amritsar and another property was filed by respondent No. 2 and her children.

6. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 2 was a chronic litigant, who had left no forum/Court to humiliate the petitioners. The allegations against the petitioners were vague, general in nature and the only specific incident narrated was that of 17.06.2017, when petitioners and co-accused had allegedly given beating to the complainant with brick bat. The allegations were preposterous and unbelievable. No medical record was produced to substantiate the absurd assertion nor any complaint was lodged before any authority. The complaint case was merely a device to browbeat, harass and humiliate the petitioners and to compel them to enter into a settlement. The case was a glaring example of misuse of the process of law and the growing tendency of exaggerated allegations roping in each and every relation of the husband. Relying upon Taramani Parakh Vs. State of M.P. and others 2015(2) RCR (Criminal) 445, Digambar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another 2025(3) RCR (Crl.) 256, Ghanshyam Soni Vs. State of (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr. 2025(3) RCR(Crl.) 202, Sanjay D. Jain and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2025(4) RCR (Crl.) 438, Shobhit Kumar Mittal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2025(4) RCR (Crl.) 417, Dera Lakshmi Narayan Vs. State of Telangana and Another 2025(1) RCR (Crl.) 151, Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another 2010(7) SCC 667 and P.V. Krishnabhai and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others 2025(2) HLR 724, it was prayed that the complaint case and summoning order dated 07.09.2019 of learned JMIC, Amritsar be quashed.

7. Respondent No. 2 has filed reply contesting the petition. Referring to the impugned order, it has been canvassed that cruelty inflicted by the petitioners was writ large on the face of the record. Allegations against the petitioners were quite specific. Disputed questions of facts raised in the petition ought to be gone into by learned trial Court during the course of trial. It was argued that right from the beginning of marriage, respondent No. 2 was subjected to cruelty, leaving her with no alternative but to file complaint wherein the summoning order was passed. Respondent No. 2 was left to fend for herself and maintain her two minor children, who were students. Though petitioners had sufficient resources and huge income from business and properties, they failed to pay maintenance and subsistence to respondent No. 2 and her children, forcing her to work. The previous complaint was withdrawn on account of the oral compromise, which the petitioners failed to honour and after withdrawal of the complaint, petitioners started treating her in the same cruel manner. Petitioner No. 1 also filed a litigation under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 against petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 which was allowed against petitioner No. 2 only. The house in question was ancestral property of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 did not make any attempt to execute orders against petitioner No. 2, who was still residing with him. Allegations against the petitioners were specific and learned trial Court rightly exercised discretion by summoning them to face trial under Sections 498-A, 120-B IPC. No interference of this Court in the matter was called for. To support his arguments, learned counsel referred to Aluri Venkata Ramana Vs. Aluri Thirupathi Rao and Others 2025(2) ALT (Crl.)55 and Taramani Parakh Vs. State of M.P. and Others 2015(2) RCR(Criminal) 445.

8. Scope and ambit of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been laid down in a number of cases. Every High Court has inherent powers to do real and substantial justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide, the very plenitude of the power requires great caution and circumspection in its exercise.

9. In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 Supreme Court 866, Hon’ble Supreme Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can be and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in this entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

10. Further Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Muniswamy and Others (1977) 2 SCC 699 observed that the wholesome power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion the allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Court have been invested with the inherent powers, but in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment of persecution. In this case, the court observed that ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this court and other courts.

11. In State of Haryana and Others Vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 AIR 604, after considering all the earlier precedents, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down principles which the High Courts must consider while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings. It gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice:

“(1)where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

12. Petitioner No. 1 is the father-in-law, who is now 82 years of age and petitioner No. 2 is the husband of the complainant/respondent No. 2. Marriage of petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized 30 years ago in the year 1996. The couple is blessed with three children, eldest Harleen Kaur being 22 years of age, Harkunwar Singh being 17 years of age and Shevangi, 14 years of age at the time of institution of the complaint. They would now be 28 years of age, 23 years of age and 20 years of age respectively. The first complaint on similar allegations was filed by respondent No. 2 on 21.07.2024 but was withdrawn soon thereafter on 30.07.2015 by making statement before learned JMIC, Amritsar. The second complaint, subject matter of the present litigation was filed on 21.05.2018.

13. Before examining the complaint, the parameters to be kept in focus while entertaining a petition for quashing of a complaint under Section 498-A IPC may be elucidated. Vague and general allegations cannot constitute a prima facie case for attracting the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

The provision reads as under:

498-A IPC

“Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a women, subjects such women to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty means”-

(a) anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

14. The requirement is that there has to be cruelty inflicted against the victim of such nature which either drives her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to herself or danger to life, limb or health of the victim. The latter part of the provision refers to harassment with a view to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands for any property or valuable security raised by the husband or his relatives.

15. In Jaydeepsingh Parvinsinh Chavda and Others Vs. State of Gujarat 2024 SCC Online SC 3679, ingredient of 498-A of IPC were discussed. It was observed thus:

“11. From the above understanding of the provision, it is evident that, ‘cruelty’ simpliciter is not enough to constitute the offence, rather it must be done either with the intention to cause grave injury or to drive her to commit suicide or with the intention to coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands.”

16. Thus, ‘cruelty’ alone is not enough to constitute the offence. It must be done with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself. In the present case, allegations levelled in the complaint do not reveal the existence of any such intention.

17. If the allegations made by the complainant are carefully examined, they appear to be vague, lacking specific instances of cruelty, demand for dowry and harassment at the hands of the petitioners. Mere omnibus allegations have been made that the petitioners were cruel, hostile towards the complainant, misappropriated her stree dhan, failed to pay maintenance to the complainant and her children, harassed her to bring more dowry, subjected her to abuse and restricted her to a small room in the house. The allegations are rather generic and ambiguous in nature and all the family members were roped in including the married sister-in-law and old aged sister of petitioner No. 1. Scrutiny of the allegations in the complaint and statements of the witnesses examined by the complainant does not prima facie make out any case against the petitioners justifying the ordeal of criminal trial.

18. The only specific allegation pressed into service by respondent No. 2 relates to the incident dated 17.06.2017, when complainant is said to have gone to the kitchen to cook food for the children and petitioner No. 2 followed by petitioner No. 1, his sister Sonia and Bua Kuldeep Kaur entered the kitchen and started beating her with a brick bat, shouting “how dare you enter the kitchen”. No individual role has been attributed to each of the four accused involved in the occurrence. There is no medical evidence to support the allegation of beating the complainant with brick bat. No complaint to any authority was moved at the earliest point of time. If four persons had indeed assaulted the complainant/respondent No. 2 with brick bats in the kitchen, she must have sustained some injury. There is nothing to show that any injury was suffered. It is also worth noticing that identical allegations were made by the complainant/respondent No. 2 against Sonia, Kulwant Kaur, as well, who learned trial Court, did not, in its wisdom summon to face trial. If the evidence on record was not sufficient to summon Sonia and Kulwant Kaur, joined as accused in the complaint, learned trial Court was not justified in summoning the petitioners ignoring the long and abnormal delay of 21 years in filing the complaint. Why the complainant woke up from her slumber after so long has not been expounded. The fact that she previously filed a criminal complaint on similar set of allegations and opted to withdraw it, is equally relevant, even though withdrawal of the previous complaint cannot be treated as a bar to filing of the subsequent complaint.

19. Prosecution under Section 498-A should not be initiated in a routine manner and is warranted only where the complaint discloses a coercive dowry demand or life-endangering cruelty, not where the parties are locked in an acrimonious but civilly resolvable conflict over assets or marital breakdown. Apparently, the complaint was filed to be used as a weapon in the personal discord and exert pressure upon the petitioner No. 1 to enter into a suitable settlement with respect to his valuable properties, wherein the parties are residing. Civil suit filed by complainant/respondent No. 2 against petitioner No. 2 regarding his properties is stated to be pending. The contents of the complaint and the statements of the witnesses, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute a case against the petitioners.

In Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another (2010) 7 SCC 667, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:

"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern………

………The Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials leads to rancor, acrimony and bitterness in a relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.”

In Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Apex Court observed:

"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:

"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case…...”

Similarly, in K. Subba Rao Vs. The State of Telangana (2012) 10 SCC 741, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:

“………. This Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them……”

In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others (2022) 1 SCR 558, the Apex Court noticed that injustice may be caused when the parties are forced to go through the tribulation of a trial based on general and omnibus allegations. Relevant portion of the observations are as under:

“……Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the Appellants and Respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the in-laws Appellants are in nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to he quashed?......

………. This Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them……

…… Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simple result in an abuse of the process of law….”

In Dara Lakshmi Narayan and Others Vs. State of Telangana and Another 2024 INSC 253, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus:

“25. A mere reference to the names of the family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.”

20. Vague and generic allegations of cruelty amidst matrimonial conflict, if not nipped at the initial stage, lead to misuse of legal process and encourage unscrupulous persons to use arm-twisting tactics to seek compliance of unreasonable demands. When the facts of the case are examined in the light of legal principles enunciated above, the present is found to be a fit case to quash the FIR and the subsequent summoning order against the petitioners. The complaint, after 21 years of marriage and 03 grown up children is merely a result of failure of marriage, intended to secure suitable settlement with respect to civil rights of respondent No. 2 and her children. Prima facie, no case of cruelty or dowry demand is made out against the petitioners and continuance of criminal proceedings against them would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

21. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Complaint No. COMI/664/2018 dated 21.05.2018 titled Gurpreet Kaur Vs. Parminder Singh under Sections 498-A, 120-B Indian Penal Code along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, including summoning order dated 07.09.2019 of learned JMIC, Amritsar are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

22. Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

Petition allowed.

********