Non-Consummation Of Marriage Can’t Be Converted Into Cruelty Case By Making Ornamental Allegations: Karnataka High Court

The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC by the husband, a police officer, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings registered for offences under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 IPC. The wife, also a police officer, had alleged cruelty after the marriage was not consummated.

A Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed: “The case at hand, without embellishments, reveals that the gravamen of the accusation is nothing more than the alleged non-consummation of the marriage. Every other allegation appears to have been ingeniously woven into the narrative only to bring the case within the four corners of Section 498A of the IPC. Such embellishments, on a plain reading of the complaint, neither satisfy the statutory ingredients of the offence nor disclose acts that would constitute cruelty within the meaning of the provision”.

The Bench further added: “The criminal law cannot be permitted to be invoked to convert matrimonial incompatibility , marital discord or non-consummation of marriage into a prosecution for cruelty by the simple device of adding ornamental allegations bereft of legal substance”.

Advocate Keerthi Reddy, for Advocate Sharath J.M., appeared for the petitioner. High Court Government Pleader Rashmi Patel appeared for the State, while Advocate Bharath Kumar S. appeared for the complainant.

Background

The petitioner and the complainant were married in November 2023. The Court recorded that the relationship gradually turned sour on the ground that the marriage was not consummated.

A complaint was registered alleging offences under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 IPC. After investigation, the police filed a chargesheet, which led the petitioner to approach the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.

The petitioner argued that non-consummation of marriage could not constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC, and that the allegations under Sections 504 and 506 IPC were vague. The complainant opposed quashing, contending that the petitioner had not consummated the marriage and allegedly stated that they should remain friends, on account of his relationship with another woman.

Court’s Observations

The Court framed the issue as whether non-consummation of marriage would amount to an offence under Section 498A IPC.

The Court observed: “A perusal of the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet unmistakably reveals that the entire edifice of the prosecution is erected upon a singular allegation—that during the brief span of four months of matrimonial cohabitation, the petitioner did not consummate the marriage.”

It added: “Save and except this allegation, every other accusation appears to be but an embellishment intended to clothe the complaint with the trappings of an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.”

The Court held that every matrimonial discord, emotional incompatibility or failure of conjugal expectations does not become cruelty under Section 498A IPC. It said the provision, being penal in nature, requires conduct of such gravity as would satisfy the statutory ingredients.

The Court noted that non-consummation may have consequences under matrimonial law, but that does not automatically make it penal cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

The Court stated: “This would undoubtedly amount to cruelty due to non-consummation of marriage under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and not cruelty as is defined under Section 498A of the IPC.”

It further held that criminal proceedings could not be permitted to continue on the same basis when the allegations did not disclose the ingredients of the penal provision.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) and Shafiya Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) to reiterate that criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes must not continue where the complaint lacks material facts supporting the alleged offence.

On the facts, it found that the complaint did not disclose acts constituting cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC.

The Court also took note of the collateral consequences caused by the criminal case, since the petitioner was a serving police officer.

The Court observed: “The very registration of the impugned crime has unleashed a departmental inquiry against him, casting a shadow over his service career and professional reputation.”

It further stated: “The petitioner is compelled to face a two-pronged assault: first, the abuse of the criminal process, and second, the stigma and adverse service consequences flowing from the pendency of the criminal case.”

The Court held that once the criminal proceedings were found to be an abuse of process, a departmental inquiry founded solely on the registration of that crime could not survive independently.

Conclusion

The High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings pending before the magistrate court in Bengaluru.

The Court held that continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process and miscarriage of justice, and that the departmental inquiry initiated only because of the criminal case would be affected by the quashing of the proceedings.

Cause Title: Manjunath M v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:38574)

Appearances

Petitioner: Keerthi Reddy, Advocate for Sharath J.M., Advocate

Respondents: Rashmi Patel, High Court Government Pleader for the State; Bharath Kumar S., Advocate for the complainant

Click here to read/download Judgment