Dowry Allegations Made After Breakdown Of Marriage Must Be Examined With Circumspection: Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Husband’s Family
The High Court held that exaggerated or unsupported claims regarding dowry and marriage expenses require scrutiny and verification under statutory rules, and criminal prosecution cannot continue where allegations are general, belated, and unsupported by prima facie material.
The Karnataka High Court held that dowry-related allegations made after the breakdown of marriage must be examined with circumspection and cannot justify criminal prosecution where the record discloses no prima facie material supporting such accusations.
The Court was hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 504, 506, read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act arising out of a matrimonial dispute.
A Bench of Justice M. G. Uma allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against all accused, while reiterating that “dowry-related allegations made after the breakdown of marriage must be examined with circumspection, and that exaggerated or unsupported claims regarding dowry or marriage expenses should be verified in accordance with the provisions and procedural requirements under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Rules”.
Background
The complainant-wife alleged that her husband and his family demanded and received large quantities of dowry, including cash, gold, and silver, and subjected her to cruelty. The marriage took place in March 2020, and the complaint was lodged in September 2020, alleging offences between March and June of that year.
The record revealed that before the complaint, the husband had issued a legal notice seeking divorce, lodged complaints against the complainant alleging threats, and the dispute had been referred for counselling. The wife had replied to the divorce notice and had earlier given a statement to the police in connection with those proceedings, but in neither of those documents were the later dowry allegations mentioned.
The petitioners also produced documents showing that the complainant’s parents were beneficiaries of a government welfare scheme meant for economically weaker sections and possessed a Below Poverty Line ration card, which, according to them, made the allegations of large dowry payments inherently improbable.
Court’s Observation
The Court began by examining whether the allegations in the complaint and charge sheet disclosed prima facie material to proceed with prosecution. It noted that although a charge sheet had been filed, the investigating officer had failed to examine the source of funds allegedly used for paying large amounts of dowry and valuables.
The Court found it significant that the complainant had not mentioned the alleged acts of cruelty or dowry demand in her reply to the divorce notice or in her earlier police statement, despite having the opportunity to do so. This omission, coupled with the timing of the complaint after matrimonial discord escalated, raised doubts regarding the genuineness of the allegations.
Referring to Supreme Court precedent, including Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings manifestly attended with mala fide intention or instituted with ulterior motives to wreak vengeance fall within recognised categories where inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to prevent abuse of process.
The Court also relied on Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana and Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, which cautioned that vague and generalised allegations against relatives in matrimonial disputes must be scrutinised and should not result in prosecution in the absence of clear prima facie material.
The Court further observed that courts must remain vigilant against misuse of Section 498A IPC, noting that although the provision was enacted to protect married women from cruelty, it has sometimes been invoked to harass the husband and his relatives through sweeping allegations.
Referring to Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Court reiterated that arrest in such cases must not be automatic and police must satisfy themselves about the necessity of arrest under Section 41 CrPC, recording reasons before depriving a person of liberty.
The Court described the present matter as one where the complaint contained general and sweeping allegations unsupported by prima facie material and observed that both the complainant and the police officer who registered the case without preliminary enquiry bore responsibility for such proceedings.
Conclusion
Holding that the criminal proceedings were initiated based on baseless and generalised allegations without supporting material, the Court concluded that continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, it allowed the petition and quashed the criminal case pending before the trial court against all petitioners.
Cause Title: Manjunath M.P. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:2726)
Appearances
Petitioners: Sri Angad Kamath; Sri Vishakh Hegde, Advocates.
Respondents: Smt. Sowmya R., High Court Government Pleader.