The Karnataka High Court has held that criminal proceedings initiated as a retaliatory measure in a deteriorating marital relationship, without credible medical or factual substantiation, constitute an abuse of process of law. The Court quashed charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where the complaint appeared designed to counter a prior domestic violence case filed by the wife.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from a breakdown in the marriage between Smt. Shubham Shweta (2nd Petitioner) and Sri Rahul Chandra (2nd Respondent/Complainant), who married on 20.04.2022 in Muzaffarpur, Bihar. The couple relocated to Bengaluru for work, but the relationship deteriorated due to allegations of dowry demands, financial abandonment, physical and verbal abuse, and restrictions on movement. The wife filed multiple complaints against her husband and in-laws, including a domestic violence case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and a criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC (now BNS provisions) in Crime No.45/2024.
Key Facts
- The wife alleged repeated physical assaults, mental harassment, and dowry demands totaling Rs. 35 lakhs (Rs. 20 lakhs cash and Rs. 15 lakhs gold).
- She produced medical evidence: MLC dated 07.10.2023 (Manipal Hospital) documenting injuries from an assault on 02.10.2023 in Goa, and another MLC dated 18.08.2024 documenting assault by the husband on her and her brother.
- On 23.08.2024, the husband gave a written undertaking to cease abuse, contribute to household expenses, and allow the wife to meet her family.
- On 28.09.2024, the husband alleged that the 1st Petitioner (his father-in-law) assaulted him with a bamboo stick at a construction site in Garuda Grand, Bengaluru.
- The husband filed Crime No.548/2024 on 01.10.2024 against the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Petitioners (father-in-law, wife, and brother-in-law) under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), and 352 of BNS 2023.
- The wound certificate issued by Vydehi Hospital on 28.09.2024 recorded only a simple abrasion on the right arm.
- The Medico-Legal Case (MLC) record from the same day, not included in the charge sheet, mentioned bleeding and abrasion on the left arm - contradicting the wound certificate.
- The charge sheet was filed on 29.10.2024 in C.C. No.265/2025, despite these inconsistencies.
Procedural History
- 20.04.2022: Marriage between 2nd Petitioner and 2nd Respondent.
- 18.08.2024: MLC registered at Manipal Hospital after alleged assault on wife and brother-in-law.
- 23.08.2024: Husband executed undertaking to cease abuse.
- 28.09.2024: Alleged assault by father-in-law at Garuda Grand construction site.
- 01.10.2024: Crime No.548/2024 registered by husband against petitioners.
- 15.10.2024: Wife filed formal complaint under BNS and Dowry Prohibition Act.
- 29.10.2024: Charge sheet filed in C.C. No.265/2025.
- 09.01.2025: Coordinate Bench granted interim stay on proceedings against family members (but not husband) in Crime No.45/2024.
- 08.01.2026: High Court issued interim stay on C.C. No.265/2025 pending review of medical evidence.
- 24.02.2026: Petition reserved for orders.
- 13.03.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners (1st, 2nd, 3rd): Argued that the complaint was a retaliatory act to counter the wife’s domestic violence case. Emphasized the implausibility of a 64-year-old man assaulting a 32-year-old with a bamboo stick, and highlighted the contradiction between the wound certificate and the unproduced MLC.
Respondents (State and Husband): Contended that the MLC, though not annexed, contained more serious injuries and that the charge sheet was based on investigation. Argued that the matter should proceed to trial.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of Crime No.548/2024, the charge sheet in C.C. No.265/2025, and all subsequent orders, on grounds of abuse of process and lack of credible evidence.
The Legal Issue
Can criminal proceedings under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be sustained when the complaint is filed as a retaliatory measure against a prior domestic violence case, and the medical evidence is inconsistent and incomplete?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The learned counsel argued that the complaint was a clear case of counter-blame to harass the wife and her family after they initiated legal action. The wound certificate recorded only a simple abrasion, while the unproduced MLC contained contradictory details. The timing of the complaint - immediately after the wife’s complaint - indicated malafide intent. Reliance was placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that courts must scrutinize complaints for abuse of process, especially in matrimonial disputes.
For the Respondent/State
The State and the husband’s counsel contended that the MLC, though not annexed, indicated more serious injuries and that the Investigating Officer’s omission was procedural, not substantive. They argued that the charge sheet was based on investigation and that the matter should be decided at trial, not at the quashment stage.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the chronology of events and the material on record. It noted that the husband’s complaint was filed on the same day the wife’s domestic violence case gained momentum, and that the medical evidence was internally inconsistent. The wound certificate, prepared on the same day as the alleged incident, recorded only a simple abrasion on the right arm. The MLC, which was not part of the charge sheet, mentioned bleeding and an abrasion on the left arm - a contradiction that the Investigating Officer failed to resolve.
"The entire argument of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent is that the crime should be permitted to be continued, on the score that MLC records something more than what the wound certificate would record. The complainant was examined on the same day. If the wound certificate issued by the hospital recorded something more than what is on record, it would have been a different circumstance."
The Court held that the failure to include the MLC in the charge sheet, coupled with the timing and context of the complaint, raised serious doubts about its bona fides. The Court emphasized that the criminal process cannot be weaponized to retaliate against a spouse who seeks protection under domestic violence laws. The Court further observed that the alleged assault by a 64-year-old man on a 32-year-old with a bamboo stick, without corroborative evidence or credible injury, was improbable.
The Court concluded that permitting the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law, as it would encourage retaliatory litigation in domestic disputes, undermining the very purpose of protective legislation.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Court quashed Crime No.548/2024, the charge sheet in C.C. No.265/2025, and all subsequent orders. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the quashment petition under Section 528 of BNSS and would not affect other pending proceedings between the parties.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Retaliatory Complaints Are Abuse of Process
- Practitioners must now challenge retaliatory FIRs and charge sheets in matrimonial disputes by demonstrating temporal proximity and lack of credible medical evidence.
- Courts will scrutinize whether a complaint was filed immediately after a domestic violence case or protection order was initiated.
Medical Evidence Must Be Consistent and Disclosed
- Wound certificates and MLCs must be reconciled; omission of contradictory medical records in charge sheets invites quashment.
- Prosecution cannot rely on unproduced documents to justify proceedings; the burden lies on the State to ensure completeness.
Courts Will Not Permit Criminalization of Marital Disputes
-
Criminal proceedings under BNS cannot be used as leverage in civil or domestic disputes.
-
Where allegations are vague, medically unsubstantiated, and retaliatory, courts have the power to intervene at the pre-trial stage to prevent harassment.
-
Always cross-check the timeline between the complainant’s prior legal action and the retaliatory FIR.
-
Demand production of all medical records - including MLCs - during quashment hearings.
-
Cite Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that gravity of offence alone cannot justify continuation of proceedings lacking prima facie credibility.
