Karnataka High Court Quashes Cruelty FIR Against Sister-In-Law Residing Abroad, Says Alleged Telephonic 'Instigation' Doesn't Attract S.498A IPC

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a cruelty case lodged by a woman against her sister-in-law who resides in Luxembourg, for allegedly 'filling the ears' of her in-laws by repeatedly calling them. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 229]The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna noted that complaint about sister-in-law torturing the complainant through such phone calls cannot be accepted in the absence of specific allegations, since instigation, that too by way of telephonic conversation, would not meet the ingredients of Section 498A IPC.The primary allegation against the petitioner was that she would call and instigate the in-laws against the complainant- wife. “..All that the petitioner is alleged of in the complaint is that, she was filling in the ear of mother in-law and father-in-law by repeatedly calling over the telephone, from Luxemburg. Except this, there is no other allegation against the petitioner… Instigation that too, by way of telephonic conversation would not mean that it would become an ingredient of Section 498A of the IPC”, the court said.The court also observed that the allegations made against the sister-in-law by her brother's wife were vague and omnibus, and hence the indication of mere telephonic conversations from abroad 'threatening' the complainant too with 'dire consequences' wouldn't constitute the ingredient of cruelty under Section 498A. “…Even if such allegation is accepted at its highest, it scarcely advances the case of the complainant. To accept such a contention in its unqualified breadth would be to dangerously widen the dragnet of criminal law, so much so that every telephonic communication by an in-law to a daughter-in law could be projected as criminal culpability. Such an interpretation would be wholly untenable. This Court notices the submission only to reject it outright, as the allegation, even if taken on its face value….”, Justice Nagaprasanna held.The sister-in-law was accused No. 4 in the 2024 crime registered by Subramanyapura Police for offences under Sections 498A, 312, 504, and 506 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. For context, the complainant had married her husband in July 2022. When the marital relationship between the parties turned bitter, multiple judicial proceedings ensued. Eventually, the complainant instituted a dowry harassment case against the husband and her in-laws.Before the High Court, the petitioner-sister in law contended that she had been residing at Luxembourg since 2017, much before the wedding between her brother and the complainant. The sister-in law also argued that there were no specific allegations against her and the complainant had unnecessarily dragged her into the web of criminal proceedings.The petitioner contended that she got married in 2017, much before the complainant's wedding, and has been residing in Luxembourg ever since. She argued that there was not an iota of specific allegation against her and that she was unnecessarily roped into the proceedings.The High Court, while quashing the FIR, relied on the apex court judgment in Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022), where it was held that general and omnibus allegations against distant relatives do not warrant prosecution. The single judge bench also quoted an excerpt from the said precedent that 'bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested' due to the 'misuse' of Section 498A.“…If the exposition of law rendered by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgments is juxtaposed with the facts obtaining in the case at hand, the inevitable conclusion that emerges is that, the foundational ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner... remain conspicuously absent,” the Court concluded.Hence, the court allowed the FIR quashing plea made by the sister-in-law and the consequent proceedings pending before the Bengaluru ACMM..Case Title: V v. State of Karnataka & Anr.Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 10716 of 2024Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 229Click Here To Read/Download Order

Karnataka High Court Quashes Cruelty FIR Against Sister-In-Law Residing Abroad, Says Alleged Telephonic 'Instigation' Doesn't Attract S.498A IPC

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

Karnataka High Court Quashes Cruelty FIR Against Sister-In-Law Residing Abroad, Says Alleged Telephonic 'Instigation' Doesn't Attract S.498A IPC

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers