1. Marriage dispute — Allegations of cruelty and dowry demand — FIR under Section 498-A read with Section 34, IPC — Petition for quashing under Section 482, CrPC. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1593
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
Raghuvir - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10350 of 2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-11-2017 in CRLAA No. 617 of 2016 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay At Nagpur))
Decided On : 13-07-2018
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, AOR., for the Petitioner; Mr. Anand Londge, Advocate, for Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR and Ms. Nidhi, AOR., for the Respondent
Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, AOR., for the Petitioner; Mr. Anand Londge, Advocate, for Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR and Ms. Nidhi, AOR., for the Respondent
Criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 CrPC if they are manifestly mala fide, maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, or filed as a counter-blast to other legal proceedings, constituting an abuse of the process of law as per the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal guidelines.
Headnote:
Abuse of Process of Law - Criminal Proceedings - Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's wife filed a First Information Report against him and his family members under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, citing abuse of process of law.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the criminal proceedings were maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive and were an abuse of process of law. The Court quashed the proceedings based on the pending matrimonial matter.
Issues: Abuse of process of law, malicious institution of criminal proceedings, pending matrimonial matter
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that when a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the high court shall not hesitate to quash the proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Final Decision: The criminal proceedings were quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contended that the criminal proceedings were maliciously instituted as a counter-blast to divorce proceedings and constituted an abuse of the process of law. (Para 3 )
3. The delayed filing of the FIR following the initiation of divorce proceedings indicates the proceedings were a mala fide afterthought intended to harass the appellant. (Para 4 , 5 , 8 )
4. Criminal proceedings manifestly attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted for vengeance or personal grudge may be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal allowed — Criminal proceedings quashed. (Para 8 )
6. Under what circumstances can a High Court quash criminal proceedings using its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC?
The High Court may quash proceedings if they are manifestly attended with mala fide, maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, or intended to spite the accused due to private and personal grudges, ensuring the judicial process is not used as an instrument of oppression. (Para 7 )
7. How does the timing of an FIR relative to matrimonial litigation affect the validity of criminal proceedings?
An FIR filed after a significant delay—specifically after the initiation of divorce proceedings and long after the parties separated—may be viewed as a counter-blast and an afterthought, constituting an abuse of the process of law. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. What is the legal impact of bald and vague allegations in a criminal complaint involving matrimonial disputes?
When allegations are bald, vague, and appear to be an afterthought, particularly while a related matrimonial matter is pending before a Family Court, the court may find no reason to continue criminal proceedings and may quash them. (Para 8 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Criminal Application (APL) No. 617 of 2016, wherein the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the second respondent and the appellant married in the Year 2011 at Nanded, Maharashtra. According to the second respondent/wife, she was subjected to ill-treatment on account of demand of money at the instance of the appellant and his family members; a First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station Aarni, District Yavatmal and the same came to be registered for the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The First Information Report was questioned by the appellant herein along with other accused/ family members of the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the proceedings. Initially the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, granted interim order staying theinvestigation based on the First Information Report filed by the second respondent. However, after hearing, the petition came to be dismissed so far as appellant is concerned. In respect of other accused, the proceedings were quashed. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondent no.2 before this Court. Therefore, an Amicus Curiae has been appointed to defend respondent no.2.
4. We are conscious of the restrictions to be exercised by the Court of Law while considering the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, in the matter on hand, we find that it is a clear case of abuse of process of law. The records prima facie reveal that on 26.08.2015, respondent no.2 left her matrimonial home and did not return to the matrimonial home thereafter. On 02.10.2015, the appellant intimated the Police Station Itwara, Nanded, regarding the aforementioned act of respondent no.2 leaving the matrimonial home on 26.08.2015. Thereafter, another complaint was lodged by the appellant on 13.10.2015 with Police Station Itwara, Nanded making certain allegations against respondent no.2 and informed the police that respondent no.2 may, as a counter blast, lodge a complaint against him and his family members only to give trouble to them. In the said complaint it is specifically mentioned that the appellant's mother is aged about 74 years and his father is 82 years and that his mother is suffering from High Blood Pressure etc. Since, the respondent no.2 did not return to the matrimonial home, thereafter, the appellant herein initiated divorce proceedings on 11.04.2016 before the Family Court, Nanded and the same is pending consideration.
5. Since there was apprehension in the mind of the appellant that the respondent no.2 will abuse the process of law by filing false complaints against him and his family members, he lodged another complaint on 29.07.2016 with the Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal narrating the chronology of events about the callous attitude of respondent no.2 and her family members. As expected by the appellant, a complaint came to be lodged against him and his family members by the second respondent/wife on 01.08.2016 alleging cruelty and dowry demand and the same is questioned by the appellant by filing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court. It appears to us that the First Information Report lodged by the second respondent is a counter blast to the divorce proceedings initiated by the appellant. Initiation of criminal proceedings that too after a period of about ten months from the date of leaving the matrimonial home and about four months from the date of filing of the divorce petition against her, appears to be clearly an afterthought and abuse of the process of law.
7. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the
