Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1747
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, C.J.I., K. VINOD CHANDRAN, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Sanjay D. Jain & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4292 of 2025 (Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.12584 of 2024)
Decided on : 26-09-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kartik Shukul, Adv. Mr. Gharote Anurag A, AOR Mr. Raghav Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Kalyani Bhide, Adv. Ms. Viddusshi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv. Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv. Mr. Pratik Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shreevardhan Dhoot, Adv. Mr. Parth Johri, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Agrahari, Adv.
Vague allegations in an FIR without necessary details do not constitute a prima facie case under IPC sections, justifying quashing of criminal proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 377, 506, read with Section 34 - Quashing of FIR - Appellants, related to the complainant, sought to quash the FIR alleging dowry demand and unnatural sex - FIR found to be vague with no prima facie case established - High Court’s dismissal of quashing application improper - Continuation of proceedings constitutes abuse of process of law. (Paras 8-12)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Standard for quashing proceedings - If allegations do not constitute an offence in entirety, quashing is justified. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged her in-laws demanded dowry and subjected her to mental torture. A FIR was registered under IPC sections after the marriage on 14.07.2021, leading to further legal proceedings against the appellants.
Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that the vague and general allegations in the FIR did not constitute cruelty or any offence under the cited sections against the appellants, warranting quashing of proceedings.
Issues: Whether the allegations in the FIR constituted actionable offences under IPC sections against the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations did not indicate a prima facie case against the appellants and emphasized that vague statements cannot sustain prosecution under IPC provisions.
Result: Appeals allowed; FIR quashed against appellants.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of allegations in fir (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenge to high court's decision (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments for both parties on allegations (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's view on proceeding with charges (Para 8) |
| 5. nature of allegations and quashing criteria (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. case for quashing proceedings established (Para 12) |
| 7. order for quashing fir and proceeding with case (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent - the complainant are aggrieved by the rejection of their application seeking quashing of the First Information Report (for short, “the FIR”) lodged against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 377 and 506 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, “the Penal Code”).
3. Facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that the son of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and brother of appellant No.3 – Piyush was married with the complainant on 14.07.2021. It is the case of the complainant that when the marriage was solemnised, her family had given various gifts to the family of her husband. After marriage, the demand for further gifts was made by the family of the husband from time to time. When the complainant had visited her parental house after the marriage, she had carried with her number of gifts for being given to the family members of her husband. This, however, did not satisfy the appellants and their demand for further gifts/dowry continued from time to time. It is also the case of the complainant that her husband insisted upon her to engage in unnatural sex, which resulted in causing her mental torture. Ultimately on 06.02.2022, First Information Report No.20 of 2022 was registered at Bajaj Nagar Police Station, Nagpur under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Subsequently, an offence under Sections 377 and 506 of the Penal Code was also added. On completion of further investigation and after recording statements of the complainant and witnesses, the final report came to be filed in the said proceedings.
4. The appellants as well as the complainant’s husband filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, “the Code”) praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings filed against them. The High Court after considering the submissions of parties found that there was prima facie material on record to proceed with the trial and that the prosecution as initiated did not deserve to be stifled. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the application filed under Section 482 of the Code.
5. Being aggrieved, the accused except the husband of the complainant have filed the present proceedings, raising a challenge to the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Application No.741 of 2022.
6. Mr. Kartik Shukul, learned Advocate along with Mr. Anurag Gharote, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that on a complete reading of the FIR, it was clear that no offence under Sections 498-A, 377 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code had been made out against the appellants. The ingredients necessary for invoking the said provisions were absent in the FIR and hence, no offence could have been registered against the appellants. The allegations as made were entirely vague in nature and in the absence of any details whatsoever it could not be said that even a prima facie case had been made out for proceeding with the trial. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Digambar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another , 2024 INSC 1019, it was submitted that even if statements made in the FIR were taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no prima facie case for proceeding against the accused had been made out. The High Court, therefore, erred in refusing to quash the proceedings qua the appellants.
As regards
