SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 328

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Suman Mishra & Ors. Appellants
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9218 of 2024]
Decided On : 12-02-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ram Lal Roy, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mr. Puneet Bindra, Adv. Mr. Anas Tanwir, AOR Ms. Sonal Kushwah, Adv. Mr. Suryansh Kishan Razdan, Adv. Mr. Ebad Ur Rahman, Adv. Ms. Zainab Shaikh, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Dowry offences – Criminal case cannot proceed on general and omnibus allegations.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A, 504, and 506 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 85, 352 and 351] – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections ¾ – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Cruelty, intentional insult and criminal intimidation – Dowry offences – Cognizance of offences – Statements of witnesses examined by police reveal that there are allegations against accused persons of general and omnibus nature, and no specific details have been provided – Initially, FIR was lodged alleging rape and no charge-sheet was filed for prosecuting accused for offence of rape, and keeping in view of fact that no protest petition was filed thereafter, FIR is vexatious and seems to be instituted with ulterior motive only because husband preferred a divorce petition much prior to filing of FIR against all family members – FIR and charge-sheet quashed. (Paras 14, 18 and 19)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is arising out of order dated 31.08.2022 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whereby High Court has dismissed the quashing application preferred by present Appellants for quashing of charge-sheet dated 02.02.2022 and cognizance order dated 28.03.2022 passed by Court of ACJM, Bareilly in FIR registered under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Findings of Court:

In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the FIR No. 733/2021 and the charge-sheet dated 02.02.2022 in the matter deserve to be quashed and are accordingly quashed.

Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The High Court’s dismissal of a quashing petition was examined for proper scope under Section 482 CrPC and its comparison to later Supreme Court guidance (!) - The judgment emphasizes that FIRs with omnibus, non-specific allegations against multiple family members may be quashed where there is lack of specific details and potential ulterior motive (divorce context) (!) (!) (!) - It cites and relies on precedents: Iqbal alias Bala; Monica Kumar; Arun Jain; Mala Kar to justify exercising powers to quash when facts show vexatious, frivolous, or ulterior motives (!) (!) (!) (!) - The case involves dowry offences under IPC 498A, 504, 506 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3/4, where charge-sheet and cognizance were challenged (!) - The Court notes lack of protest petition and divorce/marriage status as factors affecting credibility of allegations (!) (!) - It acknowledges that subsequent rulings allow quashing under Article 142/Section 482 when proceedings are instituted with ulterior motives or are otherwise abusive (!) (!) - The appeal results in quashing the FIR and charge-sheet in the peculiar facts presented (divorce, remarriage, inconsistent statements) (!) - The High Court’s cursory review was criticized for not adequately addressing specific allegations and investigation materials (!)

What is the proper scope of judicial review under Section 482 CrPC when quashing a charge-sheet in cases involving omnibus dowry allegations?

What are the circumstances under which a High Court can quash an FIR and charge-sheet in matrimonial-related dowry cases in light of prior divorce and remarriage of parties?

What constitutes an abuse of process or ulterior motive in filing a dowry-related FIR, justifying quashing according to Iqbal alias Bala, Monica Kumar, Arun Jain, and Mala Kar line of authorities?


JUDGMENT

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. The present appeal is arising out of order dated 31.08.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) being Application under Section 482 No. 23358 of 2022, whereby the High Court has dismissed the quashing application preferred by the present Appellants for quashing of the Chargesheet dated 02.02.2022 and the cognizance order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Court of ACJM, Bareilly in FIR No. 733 of 2021 registered under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. The facts of the case reveal that marriage between Appellant No. 3 and Respondent No. 2 Priyanka Mishra was solemnized on 05.03.2016 as per Hindu rites and customs at Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. The parties started living separately and Appellant No. 3 – Rishal Kumar preferred a Matrimonial Case No. 627(597) of 2021 for grant of decree of divorce on 17.06.2021 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Principal Judge Family Court No. 3 Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. After the divorce suit was filed, Respondent No. 2 - Priyanka Mishra lodged a First Information Report (“FIR”) under Section 154 of the CrPC at Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 354, 328, 376, 352, 504, 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against her husband, brother-in-law, mother-in-law and father-in-law. The investigation was conducted by Sub Inspector Reeta Tewatia and thereafter as per the directions issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, the investigation of the case was transferred from Police Station Baradari to Police Station Kotwali, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, and further investigation of the case was carried out by the Sub-Inspector posted at Police Station Kotwali. After a detailed investigation in the matter, a final report was filed under Section 173 of the CrPC and the charge-sheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 504 of the IPC read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. No charge-sheet was filed in respect of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC against the brother-in-law and it is an undisputed fact that Respondent No. 2 did not file any protest petition in the matter against dropping off of the charges under Section 376 IPC.

4. The Appellants approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad being aggrieved by the criminal proceedings initiated against them, and preferred a petition under Section 482 CrPC. Vide order dated 31.08.2022, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed the petition under Section 482 of the CrPC (“Impugned Order”).

5. The present appeal is arising out of the Impugned Order, and this Court has granted interim relief in the matter to the effect that proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed, while issuing notice on 10.07.2024.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants has vehemently argued before this Court that Appellant No. 3 filed a matrimonial case on 17.06.2021 and the said FIR was lodged only as a counter blast on 19.08.2021 in order to harass and humiliate the entire family without there being any substance in the allegations in the FIR. It was further brought to this Court’s notice that a decree of divorce was passed in Matrimonial Case No. 627(597) of 2021, which is an ex parte decree, and thereafter the Appellant No. 3 has even re-married. He has further argued before this Court that the statement of Complainant/Respondent No. 2 was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, in which she has completely deviated from the allegations made in the FIR, and therefore the FIR is false and fabricated. It has been further argued before this Court that the FIR does not inspi

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top