1. Matrimonial dispute involving allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty — FIR registered under Section 498A, IPC and Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1889
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.
Muskan – Appellant
Versus
Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) And Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4752 of 2025 [Arising Out Of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.1531 OF 2025]
Decided On : 06-11-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Pavani Verma, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR Mrs. Anumita Verma, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh (ga), Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Gautam Singh, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Pavani Verma, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR Mrs. Anumita Verma, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh (ga), Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Gautam Singh, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Cruelty and dowry offences – At the stage of quashing, Court is not required to conduct mini trial – Jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with respect to quashing is somewhat limited as Court has to only consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed against accused or not.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3 and 4 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cruelty and dowry offences – At the stage of quashing, Court is not required to conduct mini trial – Jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with respect to quashing is somewhat limited as Court has to only consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed against accused or not – If sufficient material is available, power under Section 482 should not be exercised – Normally, for quashing FIR, it must be shown that there exists no prime facie case against accused persons – In present case, prime facie allegations of harassment and demand of dowry are made out, despite that High Court quashed FIR against private respondents primarily on the ground that earlier two complaints that were filed by appellant did not mention specific instances – High Court has erred in law by embarking upon enquiry with regard to credibility or otherwise of allegations in complaints and FIR – Approach adopted by High Court amounts to conducting mini trial – Impugned order passed by High Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case set aside. (Paras 22, 27 and 28)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal has been preferred against impugned order dated 19.07.2024 in Misc. Criminal Case No.10695 of 2024 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore wherein High Court has quashed proceedings emanating from FIR No. 35 of 2024 dated 28.01.2024 registered at Police Station Alot, District Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against private respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein.
Findings of Court:
All contentions and defences available to the respective parties are kept open which shall be considered by the Trial Court on its own merits and in accordance with law.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court correctly quashed proceedings based on inconsistencies between prior complaints and the FIR or if such analysis amounted to a prohibited mini trial. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
3. The High Court erred by evaluating the credibility of allegations and comparing prior complaints with the FIR, effectively conducting a prohibited mini trial at the quashing stage. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 27 )
4. Power under Section 482, CrPC to quash an FIR must be exercised sparingly; courts cannot conduct a mini trial or assess the reliability of allegations. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order quashing the criminal proceedings set aside. (Para 28 , 29 )
6. Can a High Court conduct a mini trial while exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash an FIR?
No. At the stage of quashing, the court is not required to conduct a mini trial. It must only consider whether sufficient material exists to proceed or if the allegations disclose a cognizable offence, without embarking on an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
7. Should the court assess the credibility of allegations in an FIR to determine if they are an afterthought?
No. While examining an FIR or complaint for quashing, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations. The FIR is not an encyclopedia and need not disclose all facts and details. (Para 23 , 25 , 27 )
8. Under what circumstances should the power to quash a criminal proceeding be exercised?
The power should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases, such as when allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence or the proceeding is manifestly mala fide. (Para 20 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 26 )
JUDGMENT :
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present Appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 19.07.2024 in Misc. Criminal Case No.10695 of 2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore wherein the High Court has quashed the proceedings emanating from FIR No. 35 of 2024 dated 28.01.2024 registered at Police Station Alot, District Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 18601[“IPC”] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against private respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein.
3. At the outset, it will be pertinent to mention that respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein have not entered appearance in the present case and vide order dated 28.03.2025, this Court appointed Mr. Prakhar Srivastava, learned counsel, as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court (Pro Bono) on behalf of the unrepresented respondents.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
4. Brief facts of the present matter are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 20.11.2020 in accordance with Muslim traditions and customs. From the marriage, a son was born. During the initial days of the marriage, the appellant was treated well by respondent No. 1 and his family members.
5. However, after 5-6 months of the marriage, the private respondents started harassing the appellant by taunting her that her father had given nothing in dowry. Her husband and other members of his family started hurling filthy abuses at the appellant. Further, respondent No.1, told the appellant to fetch Rs.50 lakhs from her father so that he can pass the MIC examination. He told her, he will only keep her if she tells her father to give Rs.50 lakhs.
6. Due to continuous cruelty faced by the appellant at the hands of the private respondents, she returned to her paternal home and registered an FIR being FIR No.35 of 2024 registered at Police Station Alot, District Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against Ishaan Khan, respondent No.1 (husband), Irfana Bee, respondent No.2 (mother-in-law), Ishaaq Khan, respondent No.3 (father-in- law), Aaysha Bee, respondent No.4 (sister-in-law) and Shahid Khan, respondent No.5 (brother-in-law).
7. It was specifically mentioned in the FIR that after 5-6 months of marriage, all the above-named persons started taunting her for not giving dowry. It was stated that on 22.07.2021, respondent Nos.1 to 5 hurled abuses at her and her brother-in-law, who is respondent No.5, slapped her and asked her to bring dowry. Thereafter, on 27.11.2022, respondent No.1, her husband, asked her to bring Rs.50 lakhs from her father as he wanted to pursue further medical studies. Pursuant to which, her husband ousted both, the appellant and their son Iwaan Khan, from the matrimonial house. Thereafter, the appellant started residing with her parents. It was further stated on behalf of the appellant that her father made several attempts to reconcile differences, but the private respondents were adamant in their demand for the sum of Rs.50 lakhs.
8. Against FIR No.35 of 2024, respondent Nos.1 to 5 preferred Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.10695 of 2024, a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 19732[For short, ‘the Cr.PC’], for quashing of the said FIR registered under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and all further proceedings arising therefrom.
9. The High Court vide the impugned order dated 19.07.2024 allowed the Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.10695 of 2024. Being aggrieved thereby, the present Appeal has been filed.
10. While issuing notice in this matter, this Court passed the following order on 24.01.2025:
“1. Delay condoned.
2. We have perused the complaint dated 23rd January, 2023, filed by the instant petitioner at the concerned police station, which is part of the additional documents filed by the petitioner (page no.6).
3. Prima facie, we are of the view that the matter req
