The High Court of Kerala, in a judgment delivered on September 17, 2025, has ruled that a delay in filing a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is not a sufficient reason to quash the proceedings, especially when an explanation for the delay is provided. Justice Syam Kumar V.M. dismissed a petition filed by a husband seeking to quash a criminal case of cruelty and dowry harassment initiated by his wife eight years after their marriage.
The court held that the wife’s complaint could not be termed “frivolous, motivated or malicious” at the outset and that the correctness of the explanation for the delay was a matter to be decided on evidence during trial.
Background of the Case
The petitioner-husband sought to quash the Final Report in Crime No. 1671 of 2018 of the Ambalapuzha Police Station, which charged him with an offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. The proceedings were pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha.
The prosecution’s case originated from a private complaint filed by the petitioner’s wife on August 10, 2018. She alleged that since their marriage on April 19, 2010, the petitioner had subjected her to continuous physical and mental torture, demanding more dowry.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the complaint was “baseless and an afterthought.” He argued that the complaint was filed a full eight years after the marriage and was motivated by vengeance. The petitioner alleged that the complaint was filed only after he had preferred a complaint against his wife and her paramour on August 4, 2018, which led to the registration of a crime and the paramour’s arrest. The petitioner claimed the wife and her paramour had secretly installed a tracking application on his mobile phone. Citing “manifest malafides and the ulterior motive for vengeance and harassment,” the petitioner sought the quashing of the proceedings.
Representing the wife (de facto complainant), her counsel argued that the complaint was neither frivolous nor malicious. He submitted that the wife had been repeatedly subjected to physical and mental abuse for dowry. The complaint contained “graphic details of the torture methods employed” and specific dates of the alleged incidents. It was also her case that she had recorded the abuse on a memory card, which was handed over to the police, and that the petitioner’s complaint regarding a tracking app was “cooked up” with “oblique motives” after he learned of the recordings. The delay was explained in the complaint by narrating the “continuous nature of the demand for dowry and abuse all through the said period.”
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
Justice Syam Kumar V.M. began his analysis by reiterating the legal principle that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) must be exercised with “great care and circumspection,” as established in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others.
The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, which warned against the misuse of Section 498A, and Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, which affirmed the High Court’s power to intervene if a complaint appears frivolous. The court also cited K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, where it was held that charges could be quashed if they are clearly an afterthought.
The judgment heavily relied on the four-step test laid down by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. for determining the veracity of a prayer for quashing. After examining the material on record, the court found that the petitioner had not put forth any “material sufficient to reject or overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint.”
The court observed that the wife’s complaint provided specific details and an explanation for the delay. The judgment stated, “Merely because eight years have elapsed after marriage, the same is not a reason to quash a complaint filed by the wife alleging commission of an offence under Section 498 A IPC especially when an attempt has been made to explain out the delay, the correctness and tenability of which is to be decided on evidence.”
Decision
Concluding that the complaint and the resulting proceedings could not “prima facie be termed as frivolous, motivated or malicious prosecution,” the court found no grounds to exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The court held, “I am convinced that ends of justice would not be served by quashing the Final Report at the threshold.”
Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case was dismissed, and the prayer to quash the Final Report was declined, leaving all questions of fact and law open to be decided during the trial.
