The Telangana High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused by his ex-wife of cruelty and dowry harassment. Rejecting his petition, the court held that her serious allegations of physical abuse, mental harassment, sexual cruelty, and financial coercion require a full trial. It ruled that disputed factual matters, including monetary transactions and delays in filing, cannot be decided prematurely.Justice N Tukaramji was dealing with a man’s plea seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against him in a case of cruelty and extortion, where he allegedly compelled her wife to transfer Rs 10 lakh from her retirement benefits and savings.“The allegations of persistent physical assault, mental harassment, sexual abuse, coercion to part with substantial sums of money and repeated acts of cruelty cannot, at this stage, be characterised as absurd, inherently improbable or devoid of factual foundation. They, therefore, warrant adjudication at trial rather than termination at the threshold,” the court said on August 25.The ruling held that the evidentiary value of the allegations concerning illicit relationships, concealment of disease and immoral conduct, as well as the true nature of the monetary transactions, must be assessed based on legally admissible oral and documentary evidence.Also Read | ‘Guesswork on overseas income’: Bombay High Court rejects wife’s Rs 10 lakh alimonyThe order noted that the chargesheet discloses specific allegations that, from the inception of the marriage, the petitioner subjected the de facto complainant to physical, mental, emotional, economic and sexual cruelty.“It is alleged that he was a habitual drinker, maintained illicit relationships with other women, compelled her to watch pornographic material, sexually harassed and abused her, concealed before the marriage that he was suffering from a venereal disease, compelled her to part with Rs 10 lakh from her retirement benefits, demanded a further sum of Rs 25 lakh for renovation of his property, assaulted her by pulling her hair, and ultimately deserted her,” it said.Wife alleged years of crueltyThe petitioner approached the court seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending against him. He was accused by his wife of offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The couple married in April, 2008. The wife alleged that from the beginning of the marriage, the man subjected her to physical, mental, emotional, economic and sexual cruelty. She also accused him of habitual drinking, relationships with other women, abusive behaviour and concealing his alleged venereal disease before marriage.Story continues below this adShe further alleged that after taking voluntary retirement in 2016, he compelled her to part with Rs 10 lakh from her retirement benefits and savings and subsequently demanded another Rs 25 lakh for renovation of his property. Following her refusal, she alleged that he assaulted and harassed her. After that, her complaint led to the registration of an FIR, following which the police completed the investigation and filed a chargesheet.Meanwhile, their marriage was dissolved by the family court in December 2021, which also awarded the wife Rs 10 lakh as permanent alimony. The wife later lodged another complaint alleging that he continued to harass and intimidate her through calls, messages and emails even after the divorce.The man argued that the allegations were vague, unsupported and did not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences, while the wife opposed quashing, maintaining that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case requiring trial.‘Delay in complaint not grounds for quashing FIR’The court observed that the chargesheet contained specific allegations of persistent physical, mental, emotional, economic and sexual cruelty, including assault, sexual abuse, coercion to part with Rs 10 lakh and a further demand of Rs 25 lakh.Story continues below this adThe court noted that an extramarital relationship by itself does not automatically amount to cruelty under Section 498-A IPC. Whether the cumulative conduct amounted to statutory cruelty would have to be decided after evidence is examined at trial.Regarding the alleged Rs 10 lakh and Rs 25 lakh demands, the court said it was a disputed question whether these were financial transactions or dowry demands. Whether the demands had the necessary nexus with marriage had to be determined at trial.The court also held that the delay in filing the complaint was not sufficient to quash the proceedings, as its effect on the credibility of the allegations was a matter for trial.