Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings; the order was set aside and the criminal case against the husband must proceed.

Summary

The appellant-wife alleged that her husband and his relatives assaulted her and her family on 27 October 2020 by throwing chilli powder in her eyes and attacking them with slippers and stones, while also demanding dowry. A criminal case was filed under IPC sections 498-A, 324, 355, 504, 506 read with 149, and the police recorded statements and recovered the weapons. The High Court, in two separate single‑judge orders, quashed the proceedings against the husband and the septuagenarian parents‑in‑law, respectively, on the ground that the medical evidence did not match the alleged assault. The Supreme Court held that the trial judge had improperly conducted a "mini‑trial" by assessing the credibility of the FIR and medical evidence, which is a matter for the trial court, and that the case did not fall within the category where there is no legal evidence or manifestly inconsistent evidence. Consequently, the quashing order against the husband was set aside and the criminal proceedings were revived. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court erred in exercising its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings against the husband on the basis of alleged inconsistency between the wound certificate and the FIR.
Whether a court can undertake a mini‑trial to assess the credibility of evidence at the pre‑trial stage.
Whether the pendency of a matrimonial suit constitutes an abuse of process justifying quashing of criminal charges.
Whether the presence of legal evidence, such as a wound certificate and eyewitness statements, precludes the invocation of inherent powers to quash the case.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 149, s. 324, s. 355, s. 498-A, s. 504, s. 506, s. 561-A

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Appellant-wife has challenged the impugned order whereby the High Court quashed proceeding u/ss.498-A, 324, 355, 504, 506 r/w. s.149 of the Penal Code, 1860 against the respondent-husband. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A, 324, 355, 504, 506 r/w. s.149 and other in-laws harassed appellant-wife physically and mentally and also demanded dowry – Appellant started residing at her parental home – On 27.10.2020, respondent-husband and other in-laws went to parental home of appellant and threw chilli powder in her eyes, abused

Subjects

HarassmentDowryAssaultSeptuagenarian parents-in-lawWound certificateMedical certificateInherent powersQuashing of criminal proceedingsMini trialNature of assault

Judgment

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1936 : 2025 INSC 596

Renuka
v.
State of Karnataka and Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2309 of 2025)
29 April 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Appellant-wife has challenged the impugned order whereby the
High Court quashed proceeding u/ss.498-A, 324, 355, 504, 506 r/w.
s.149 of the Penal Code, 1860 against the respondent-husband.

Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A, 324, 355, 504, 506 r/w. s.149 –
Allegation that respondent-husband and other in-laws
harassed appellant-wife physically and mentally and also
demanded dowry – Appellant started residing at her parental
home – On 27.10.2020, respondent-husband and other in-laws
went to parental home of appellant and threw chilli powder in
her eyes, abused and assaulted her relatives with slippers and
stones – Neighbours, including one S, intervened and rescued
them – FIR registered – The in-laws assailed the proceeding
before the High Court – The Single Judge of the High Court
quashed the proceeding only against the septuagenarian
parents-in-law – Subsequently, respondent-husband prayed
for quashing before another co-ordinate single bench which
came to be allowed – Correctness:
Held: In the instant case, while one judge refused to quash
proceeding against the in-laws, inter alia, observing wound
certificate demonstrates the appellant was assaulted and suffered
simple injuries, another judge by the impugned order quashed
the proceeding against respondent-husband holding the medical
certificate was not consistent with the allegations in the complaint
i.e. the wound certificate does not show the injuries were caused
by a blunt weapon – Having perused the impugned judgment,
this Court is of the view that judge erred in law by embarking
upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility or otherwise of the
allegations in the FIR/Chargesheet – The Judge compared the
nature of assault described in the FIR vis-à-vis wound certificate
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1937

Renuka v. State of Karnataka and Anr.

and came to a finding that the allegations are untrue – In doing
so, the Judge had undertaken a mini trial to quash the proceeding
which is impermissible in law – There is no hesitation in holding
that the allegation of throwing chilli powder and assault on the
appellant by respondent-husband and other in-laws is not only
supported by the wound certificate which discloses simple injury
but also the statement of the neighbour-S – Given this situation, it
cannot be said the case falls in the category of those cases where
there is no legal evidence or evidence is “manifestly and clearly
inconsistent” with the accusation levelled in the chargesheet –
Thus, the impugned order is set aside and proceeding against the
respondent-husband is revived. [Paras 8, 9, 12]

Case Law Cited
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [1960] 3 SCR 388 : 1960 SCC
OnLine SC 21 – relied on.

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Harassment; Dowry; Assault; Septuagenarian parents-in-law;Wound
certificate; Medical certificate; Inherent powers; Quashing of criminal
proceedings; Mini trial; Nature of assault.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2309 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.02.2024 of the High Court
of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in CRP No. 101591 of 2021

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ms. Rudrali Patil, Shaantanu Devansh, Suhas Hosamani,
Ms. Rushika Patil, Sabeel Ahmed, Anshuman.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv., D. L. Chidananda, M/s. Nuli & Nuli,
Abhishek Kanyalur, Abhishekh Singh.
1938 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. Appellant-wife has challenged the impugned order whereby the High
Court quashed proceeding in CC No. 163 of 2021 dated 03.02.2021
under Sections 498-A, 324, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149
of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 against the respondent-husband.
3. The aforesaid case was registered on the written complaint lodged
by the appellant-wife alleging as follows:-
(i) Marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized
in 2012.
(ii) Two children were born to the couple.
(iii) Respondent-husband developed illicit relation with one Bharati
Halamani Tamadaddi and the latter abused the appellant in filthy
language four months prior to the incident. She reported the
matter to Teradal Police Station but no complaint was lodged.
(iv) Respondent-husband and other in-laws harassed her physically
and mentally and demanded two lakhs dowry.
(v) Due to ill treatment and demand of dowry, the appellant started
residing at her parental home at Telasang.
(vi) On 27.10.2020, Respondent-husband and other in-laws came
in a car to her parental home and threw chilli powder in her
eyes, abused her and her relations in filthy language and
assaulted them with slippers and stones. Neighbours, including
one Suvarna Andri, intervened and rescued them.
4. During investigation, Police recovered slippers and stones from the
place of occurrence. Statements of witnesses including the neighbour
Suvarna Andri were recorded and charge sheet was filed against
respondent-husband and in-laws.

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1939

Renuka v. State of Karnataka and Anr.

5. The in-laws assailed the proceeding2 before the High Court. A Single
Judge partly allowed the petition and quashed the proceeding against
the septuagenarian parents-in-law but permitted the proceeding to
continue against other in-laws.
6. Subsequently, respondent-husband prayed for quashing3 before
another co-ordinate single bench which came to be allowed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
8. The case at hand portrays a disturbing picture. While one judge
refused to quash proceeding against the in-laws, inter alia, observing
wound certificate demonstrates the appellant was assaulted and
suffered simple injuries, another judge by the impugned order
quashed the proceeding against respondent-husband holding the
medical certificate was not consistent with the allegations in the
complaint i.e. the wound certificate does not show the injuries were
caused by a blunt weapon.
9. Having perused the impugned judgment, we are of the view the
judge erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard to the
credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR/Chargesheet. The
Judge compared the nature of assault described in the FIR vis-à-
vis wound certificate and came to a finding that the allegations are
untrue. In doing so, the Judge had undertaken a mini trial to quash
the proceeding which is impermissible in law.
10. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab4 this Court enumerated the category
of cases where inherent powers may be invoked to quash criminal
proceeding. One such category is where there is no legal evidence
adduced in support of the allegations made against the accused or
the allegations or such evidence manifestly fails to prove the charge.
Elaborating further with regard to scope of enquiry to determine this
category of cases, the Court held as follows:-
“6. ………………. In dealing with this class of cases it
is important to bear in mind the distinction between a
case where there is no legal evidence or where there

2 Criminal Petition No. 101599 of 2021
3 Criminal Petition No. 101591 of 2021
4 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21.
1940 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent
with the accusation made and cases where there is legal
evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support
the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction
under Section 561-A the High Court would not embark
upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is
reliable or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate,
and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke
the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction and contend that on
a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation
made against the accused would not be sustained………..”
(emphasis supplied)

11. This view has been consistently followed and in a catena of cases5 this
Court has repeatedly forbidden the High Court from embarking on a
‘mini trial’ in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceeding.
12. Applying the ratio to the facts of the case, we have no hesitation
to hold the allegation of throwing chilli powder and assault on the
appellant by respondent-husband and other in-laws is not only
supported by the wound certificate which discloses simple injury
but also the statement of the neighbour, Suvarna Andri. Given this
situation, it cannot be said the case falls in the category of those
cases where there is no legal evidence or evidence is “manifestly and
clearly inconsistent” with the accusation levelled in the chargesheet.
13. It is nobody’s case no injury was noted in the wound certificate,
rendering the allegation of assault patently absurd or inherently
improbable. In this backdrop, it was unwarranted for the judge to
embark on a mini trial to weigh the ocular version vis-à-vis medical
evidence and quash the proceeding. Whether the ocular evidence
is fully incompatible with medical evidence is a matter of trial and
cannot be a ground to terminate prosecution at the initial stage.

5 Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315,
(Para 10.7); State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty and Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1222, (Para 8.2);
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v. Akhil Sharda and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820, (Para 18);
State v. M. Maridoss and Another 2023 SCC OnLine SC 47, (Para 7); Central Bureau of Investigationv.
Aryan Singh and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379, (Para 6); Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of
Jharkhand and Another 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1894, (Para 17); Ranjeet Mittal v. State of Madhya
Pradesh 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2926, (Para 19).
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1941

Renuka v. State of Karnataka and Anr.

14. In support of quashing the Judge had also observed that it is unclear
from the allegations who had perpetrated the assault and the
prosecution during the pendency of a matrimonial suit was nothing but
an abuse of process of Court. These grounds are equally untenable.
15. Respondent-husband and other in-laws (except parents-in-law) have
been alleged to have acted in concert and conjointly assaulted the
appellant and her relations. When multiple accused share common
intention/common object to commit a crime, it is irrelevant to determine
the exact role played by each of them in the assault. Learned Judge
failed to appreciate the uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet
attracted constructive liability and the proceeding could not be
quashed on the score it is unclear who had perpetrated the assault.
16. The Judge also misdirected himself in coming to a finding that the
proceeding was malicious and an abuse of the process of court as
proceedings were pending before the matrimonial court. Offences
involving cruelty on wife would invariably arise out of matrimonial
disputes. Accordingly, pendency of matrimonial proceeding between
the parties cannot per se lead to an inference that institution of
criminal proceeding alleging assault supported by medical evidence
and independent witness is a product of malice and abuse of court.
17. Finally, it is argued there are case and counter case and proceeding
against parents-in-law have been quashed by the co-ordinate
bench. Noting the parents-in-law are septuagenarian and there is no
whisper in the FIR that they participated in the assault, proceeding
against them was quashed. Uncontroverted allegations in the FIR/
Chargesheet unequivocally implicate respondent-husband in the
assault. He stands on the same footing with the other in-laws i.e.
brother-in-law/sisters-in-law against whom the proceeding was not
quashed in Criminal Petition No. 101599 of 2021. Though the order
refusing to quash the proceeding against some of the in-laws was
passed earlier, it is inexplicable why there is no reference to the
said order in the impugned order quashing proceeding against the
respondent-husband. It was incumbent on the Judge while quashing
the proceeding against the respondent-husband to refer to the earlier
decision of the co-ordinate bench and distinguish the reasons therein
to arrive at a different conclusion. Failure to do so infracts judicial
propriety and discipline. Consistency in judicial outcomes is the
hallmark of a responsible judiciary. Inconsistent decisions coming
1942 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

out from different benches shake public trust and reduce litigation
to a punter’s game. It gives rise to various insidious sharp practices
like forum shopping spoiling the clear stream of justice. Impugned
order suffers from the vice of judicial caprice and arbitrariness and
is liable to be set aside also on this score.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the order dated 16.02.2024
and the proceeding against the respondent-husband (R2) are revived
and shall continue in accordance with law. Consequently, the appeal
is allowed.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan