Introduction:

In a striking illustration of how matrimonial disputes can spiral into competing criminal accusations, the Karnataka High Court intervened to stay criminal proceedings against a husband who alleged that his wife had lodged an assault case against him purely as a counter-blast to his own complaint. The order was passed on February 10 by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who was confronted with an unusual factual situation where the alleged incident of assault took place inside a police station during conciliation proceedings in a pending case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner, the husband, approached the High Court challenging the initiation of criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 1301/2025, asserting that the complaint filed against him was retaliatory and malicious. According to him, the parties were summoned to the police station for counselling in connection with a matrimonial dispute when he himself was assaulted by his wife in the presence of the police inspector. He further alleged that despite this, a criminal case was subsequently registered against him based on a narrative that was directly contradicted by CCTV footage obtained under the Right to Information Act.

The matter raised serious concerns about abuse of the criminal process, the role of police authorities during conciliation proceedings, and the evidentiary value of electronic surveillance in determining prima facie credibility at the threshold stage. Taking note of the submissions and the peculiar circumstances, the High Court issued emergent notice and stayed further proceedings, observing that the matter required closer judicial scrutiny.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner (Husband):

The petitioner’s counsel placed a detailed factual narrative before the Court to demonstrate that the criminal proceedings initiated against the husband were not only false but also vindictive in nature. It was submitted that the parties were called to the police station for conciliation proceedings in connection with a complaint under Section 498A IPC, a provision frequently invoked in matrimonial disputes. During this interaction, verbal altercations took place between the spouses in the presence of the police inspector.

The counsel emphatically submitted that the situation escalated when the wife physically assaulted the petitioner inside the police station, and that too in the immediate presence of the inspector. Referring to CCTV footage, the counsel stated before Justice Nagaprasanna, “I am assaulted inside the police station in front of the inspector. And crime is registered against me as a counter-blast.” This submission prompted an oral remark from the Court, which underscored the unusual nature of the allegation: “Your wife assaulted you?”

The petitioner’s counsel clarified that the footage was not a private recording but was official CCTV footage obtained through RTI, lending credibility and authenticity to the petitioner’s version. It was argued that after the initial verbal exchange, the inspector instructed both parties to step outside the police station to avoid further disturbance. At that point, according to the petitioner, the wife assaulted him again and also kicked his father, who was present. Thereafter, she walked away from the scene.

The crux of the petitioner’s grievance was that two days later, the wife lodged a complaint alleging that she had been assaulted by the husband. This complaint, the petitioner argued, was a deliberate counter-blast intended to neutralise or overshadow his own complaint regarding the assault committed by the wife. The counsel highlighted a crucial contradiction: according to the wife’s complaint, the alleged assault by the husband took place in the passage as she was walking away, whereas the CCTV footage clearly showed the petitioner standing in front of the inspector at the relevant time.

On these facts, it was argued that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. The counsel urged the Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent misuse of criminal machinery, particularly when documentary and electronic evidence prima facie contradicted the prosecution version. The stay was sought to ensure that the petitioner was not subjected to unnecessary criminal trial based on an allegedly fabricated narrative.

Arguments on Behalf of the State and the Other Respondents:

At the preliminary stage of hearing, the State and the other respondents had not yet filed their detailed responses, as the matter was taken up for initial consideration. However, the implicit position of the prosecution, as reflected from the registration of the case, was that the wife’s complaint disclosed prima facie ingredients of assault, justifying initiation of criminal proceedings.

From the standpoint of the prosecution, it could be argued that allegations of domestic or matrimonial violence often involve conflicting versions, and such disputes ordinarily require full-fledged trial to ascertain the truth. The registration of an FIR or criminal case, the State could contend, does not amount to a finding of guilt but merely sets the criminal law in motion.

It may also be argued on behalf of the complainant wife that the presence of CCTV footage does not automatically negate her version unless its contents are conclusively proved and interpreted in accordance with law. The prosecution could further submit that issues relating to authenticity, completeness, and context of electronic evidence are matters for trial and not for summary adjudication at the threshold.

Nevertheless, at this stage, the State did not assert that the petitioner had misused the process of law or obstructed justice. Recognising the seriousness of the allegations raised by the petitioner and the reliance placed on CCTV footage, the Court deemed it appropriate to issue notice to the State and other respondents to place their stand on record before proceeding further.

Court’s Observations and Interim Judgment:

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, after hearing the submissions of the petitioner’s counsel, found that the matter raised substantial questions warranting immediate judicial attention. The Court was particularly struck by the assertion that the alleged assault occurred inside a police station, a space that is ordinarily expected to ensure safety, neutrality, and lawful conduct.

The Court took note of the petitioner’s claim that the alleged incident was captured on CCTV cameras installed within the police station premises and that the footage was procured through lawful means under the RTI Act. While the Court did not make any final determination on the veracity of the footage or the competing allegations, it acknowledged that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case deserving interim protection.

Recognising the potential for irreparable harm to the petitioner if the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue unchecked, the Court exercised its discretion to stay further proceedings. The order recorded, “Emergent Notice. Further proceedings in C.C. No. 1301/2025 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.”

By issuing emergent notice to the State and the other respondents, the Court ensured that all parties would have an opportunity to present their version before any final decision is taken. Importantly, the Court did not quash the proceedings at this stage but chose a measured approach, balancing the need to prevent abuse of process with the necessity of hearing all sides.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 27, when the Court is expected to examine the responses of the State and the complainant and consider the CCTV footage and other materials in greater detail. The interim stay reflects judicial caution and underscores the principle that criminal law should not be used as a tool of retaliation in matrimonial conflicts.