Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Charul Shukla – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1638 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 555 of 2024) With Criminal Appeal No. 1639 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.609 of 2024)
Decided On : 25-03-2026
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323, 354 and 498A read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Cruelty and dowry offences – Refusal to quash criminal proceedings – Mere statement stating that accused/appellants frequently demanded dowry and harassed complainant for same is not sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings against them when same are not corroborated or bolstered by other materials placed on record – Complaint was registered by complainant only after a delay of more than six years and seven months from alleged dowry demand – Prosecution has failed to put forth any sufficient cause for such delay and this casts aspersions on their story – Delay of nearly seven years can be fatal to prosecution’s case especially when same has not been properly explained – Attached medical examination report fails to ascribe or delineate any particular injury that relates to or supports claim of complainant either – Allegations are made without any evidentiary backing or material support for the same – It is neither expedient nor in interest of justice to permit continuation of present prosecution – Criminal case quashed qua accused/appellants who are complainant’s sister-in-law and parents-in-law. (Paras 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28 and 29)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323, 354 and 498A read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Cruelty and dowry offences – Law protects those who are vigilant about their rights – Citizens who allege commission of an offence should not dawdle on their rights but should rather pursue them in real time in order to achieve ends of justice – Delay or lack thereof assumes greater importance in matrimonial cases or criminal cases between spouses as due to personal nature of allegations and relationship shared between parties, there is already insufficiency and inadequacy of evidence to support or rebut claims and counterclaims. (Para 21)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 354 – Attempt to outrage modesty – Ingredients – To attract offence of Section 354, ultimate test to ascertain whether modesty of a woman has been outraged, assaulted or insulted is that action of offender should be such that it may be perceived as one which is capable of shocking sense of decency of a woman. (Para 25)
Facts of the case:
Present criminal appeals have been preferred by appellants assailing order dated 18.12.2023 passed by Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.9354 of 2023, wherein High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings arising out of FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 313 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and subsequently a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 323, 354, 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.
Findings of Court:
Observations made in the present appeals shall not come in the way of any matrimonial or other proceedings pending between the parties which shall be decided on their own merits and in accordance with law.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Key Points: - Supreme Court allowed appeals by sister-in-law and parents-in-law, quashing FIR No.758/2023, Chargesheet No.01/2024, and Criminal Case No.634/2025 against them due to vague, delayed, and unsubstantiated allegations (!) (!) . - Marriage occurred on 16.04.2017; FIR lodged on 15.11.2023 after over six years, with no explanation for delay, casting doubt on credibility (!) (!) (!) . - Allegations of dowry demands (Rs.8,50,000 and car), cruelty, assault causing miscarriage in July 2017, and sexual misconduct by father-in-law were vague, omnibus, and unsupported by evidence or medical records (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - No proof of pregnancy, miscarriage, or injuries; Section 313 IPC dropped in chargesheet; no material evidence for dowry demands or harassment (!) (!) . - Sister-in-law lived separately in Ghaziabad, employed as professor with B.Tech/M.Tech; parents-in-law (aged 71-73) resided in Kanpur, no shared household established (!) (!) (!) . - High Court dismissed quashing petition relying on FIR allegations, but Supreme Court found chargesheet lacked substance and applied Bhajan Lal guidelines (!) (!) (!) . - Vague allegations without specific details or corroboration do not prima facie constitute offences under IPC Sections 498A, 323, 354 or DP Act Sections 3/4 (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Delay of nearly seven years fatal to prosecution case, especially in matrimonial disputes lacking evidence; law aids vigilant, not dormant (!) (!) . - Complainant did not appear despite notice, drawing adverse inference; proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process and harassment of innocents (!) (!) (!) . - Observations not to affect other matrimonial proceedings between parties (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background details of the case and allegations (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. high court's dismissal of quashing petition (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. understanding of legal provisions related to allegations (Para 14 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. arguments from both sides regarding allegations and dismissal (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 22) |
| 5. ruling on the validity and likelihood of allegations (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. conclusion and quashing of proceedings (Para 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
NAGARATHNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants assailing the order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.9354 of 2023, wherein the High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.758 of 2023 registered at Police Station Mohammadi, District Khiri, at the instance of respondent No.4 (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) against the accused/appellants. The said FIR invoked offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”), as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “DP Act”) and subsequently a chargesheet was filed under Sections 3 23, 354, 498A of and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the accused/appellant in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.555/2024 is the sister-in-law of the complainant, whereas the accused/appellants in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.609/2024 are the mother-in-law and father-in-law (parents-in-law) respectively of the said complainant. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the complainant and her husband, Utkarsh Awasthi was solemnised on 16.04.2017 as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies.
4. It has been alleged by the prosecution–State/respondent No.1 and the complainant that from the inception of the marriage solemnised at Kanpur, her husband and accused/appellants herein frequently demanded dowry to the tune of Rs.8,50,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs and Fifty Thousand) and a car. Due to the financial incapacity and constraints of the parents of the complainant, the said dowry demand could not be acceded to leading to the accused/appellants allegedly harassing and torturing the complainant.
5. As the complainant’s husband was employed in Ghaziabad, the complainant moved in with him within five days of their marriage and thereafter, it has been alleged that the sister-in-law, who also lives in Ghaziabad with her husband, namely, Atul, frequently stayed at the complainant’s residence and instigated the complainant’s husband against her by making false accusations that the complainant was engaged in an illicit relationship with Atul.
6. Furthermore, it has been alleged that in the month of July, 2017, when the complainant was two months’ pregnant, her husband and the appellants, upon becoming aware of the factum of the said pregnancy, raised strong objections to the continuation of her pregnancy and in furtherance of the said objection, her husband, her sister-in-law and parents-in-law allegedly barged into the complainant’s room and caught hold of her; the sister-in-law allegedly grabbed the complainant by her hair and threw her on the ground and caught hold her legs whereas the mother-in-law caught hold of the complainant’s hand, after which the husband proceeded to kick the complainant on her stomach due to which she became unconscious and suffered a miscarriage.
7. Thereafter, in October 2017, the complainant travelled with her husband to Kanpur to visit her parents-in-law to celebrate Diwali festival. During this period also, she was subjected to harassment and was compelled to reside in a hostile environment. In the absence of her husband, the father-in-law held the complainant’s hand and engaged in inappropriate conduct with her. The complainant states that when she objected to the sai
(1) Cruelty and dowry offences – Merely stating certain vague and omnibus allegations without any cogent material evidence to support the same should not become a fillip to jump-start criminal machin....
(1) Cruelty – Term “cruelty” cannot be established without specific instances – Mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out specifics against such persons would not be sufficient to c....
Section 498A of IPC (Section 85 of BNS) is often being misused and Court must guard against it – Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead t....
Specific allegations are essential for prosecuting relatives in dowry cases; vague claims do not suffice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complaint filed as a counter-blast, after the initiation of divorce proceedings, and lacking prior complaints or corroboration, may be consi....
Point of Law : Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a co....
Charges framed under Sections 498A and 323 IPC quashed due to lack of specific allegations and evidence, preventing abuse of process of law.
General and unsupported allegations in matrimonial disputes cannot sustain criminal charges against relatives; specific acts must be demonstrated to justify prosecution.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
