In a detailed judgment delivered on January 8, 2026, the High Court of Karnataka stepped in to halt what it described as a clear misuse of criminal law in a matrimonial dispute. Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed an FIR registered under Section 498A of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act against a Bengaluru-based man and his family, holding that ordinary marital disagreements cannot be stretched into criminal offences.
Background of the Case
The case arose from Crime No.90 of 2024 registered by the Basavanagudi Women Police Station. The complainant, the wife of the first accused, alleged cruelty, harassment, and dowry demands against her husband and his parents and brother.
Read also:- Preventive Detention Misused: Supreme Court Frees Telangana Woman Held in Ganja Cases
The couple married in August 2017 and soon moved to the United States, where they lived together for nearly six years and had two children. The wife returned to India in January 2023. Almost a year later, in 2024, she lodged a criminal complaint in Bengaluru, alleging that incidents of mental and physical harassment had occurred both abroad and over phone calls from India.
Following registration of the FIR, a Look Out Circular was also issued against the husband, restricting his international travel.
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the accused argued that the dispute was purely matrimonial and that routine disagreements were being projected as criminal cruelty. The defence contended that allowing such prosecution to continue would amount to abuse of the legal process, particularly when most allegations related to life abroad and lacked specific details.
On the other hand, the wife’s counsel maintained that the complaint disclosed sufficient grounds for investigation, at least against the husband, and urged the court not to interfere at the threshold. The State also supported continuation of the probe.
Court’s Observations
After examining the entire complaint line by line, the court found that the allegations largely revolved around domestic expectations, disagreements over household chores, food habits, clothing, and strained communication.
Justice Nagaprasanna observed that even if the allegations were accepted at face value, they reflected “a portrait of marital discord” rather than the grave cruelty contemplated under Section 498A.
Read also:- Stray Dogs Case: Supreme Court Seeks Balance Between Public Safety and Animal Welfare, Hearing Continues
“The law does not criminalise incompatibility, nor does it punish imperfect marriages,” the bench noted, adding that Section 498A is meant to address serious cruelty or harassment linked to unlawful dowry demands, not everyday wear and tear of married life.
The court also expressed serious concern over the police registering the FIR without a preliminary inquiry, contrary to Supreme Court guidelines, and issuing a Look Out Circular on what it termed “frivolous allegations.”
On Dowry Allegations and In-Laws
The judgment highlighted that the complaint lacked clear, specific instances of dowry demand with dates, amounts, or direct acts attributable to individual family members. Roping in the parents-in-law and brother-in-law without concrete roles, the court said, squarely fell within the category of cases warned against by the Supreme Court.
Read also:- Thiruparankundram Deepam Case: Madras HC Warns Collector, Police of Contempt for Defying Court Orders
“Mere general allegations, without particulars, cannot set the criminal law in motion,” the judge observed.
Decision
Concluding that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to harassment and misuse of law, the High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.
The court quashed the FIR in Crime No.90 of 2024 in its entirety, including proceedings under Sections 498A and 504 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the trial court in Bengaluru.
Case Title: Abuzar Ahmed & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 7053 of 2024
