Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Arti Mehta & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 18345 of 2024)
With
Arti Mehta & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sapna Dhakad – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1234 of 2025)
Decided On : 25-05-2026
Key Points: - The Court held that omnibus, generalized allegations against relatives of the spouse cannot sustain criminal liability and may justify quashing at the threshold under Section 482 CrPC. (!) (!) - Quashing at threshold does not bar future proceedings under Section 319 CrPC if evidence of active participation emerges during trial; trial court may summon such persons. (!) (!) (!) - Quashing does not amount to an acquittal on merits, and does not bar subsequent prosecution; double jeopardy protections under Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC do not apply to pre-trial quashing. (!) (!) (!) - The core allegations against appellants were found to be generalized; husband-fronted acts were chiefly attributed to him, with appellants’ involvement not shown with specific overt acts. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Court clarified that Section 319 can be used at any stage of trial with cogent evidence, as established in Hardeep Singh and Brijendra Singh decisions. (!) (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual context regarding matrimonial discord and criminal proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. parties' conflicting contentions regarding quashing of criminal proceedings. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. scope of section 482 crpc and criteria for quashing omnibus criminal allegations. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 4. applicability of dv act and insufficiency of generalised allegations for domestic violence. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 5. requirement of specific overt acts for criminal liability in matrimonial cases. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 6. power of court under section 319 crpc to summon accused after trial evidence. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 7. final order of quashing proceedings qua specific appellants with liberty to trial court. (Para 58 , 59 , 60) |
JUDGMENT
NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.
Leave granted in both the SLPs.
2. This common order disposes of both the Criminal Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 18345 of 2024 and Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1234 of 2025 as both these appeals relate to connected incidents in the proceedings initiated at the instance of Respondent No.2, namely Sapna Dhakad (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”), arising out of matrimonial discord between Respondent No.2 and her husband, namely Divyaraj Dhakad.
3. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 18345 of 2024 was filed against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2024, passed by the Ld. Single Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Bench at Gwalior) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 14615 of 2023 whereunder the High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) for quashing the FIR/Crime No. 41/2023 dated 13.01.2023, registered at Police Station Guna, District Guna, Madhya Pradesh under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short “Dowry Act”) by holding that, there is prima facie material against the appellants, Arti Mehta, Shrivati Bai Dhakad, Manisha Dhakad and Vikram Dhakad. The High Court further observed that the allegations levelled against the appellants were specific and direct in nature, thus warranting prosecution.
4. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1234 of 2025 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2024, passed by the Ld. Single Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Bench at Gwalior) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 20269 of 2023, whereunder the High Court declined to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the criminal proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “DV Act”) in D.V. Complaint No. 1752 of 2023 pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Guna, District Guna, Madhya Pradesh. While dismissing the petition preferred by the present appellants, the High Court observed that the appellants, admittedly being relatives of the respondent-wife, would fall within the ambit of the expression “respondent” as defined under Section 2(q) of the DV Act. The High Court further held that even female relatives can be arrayed as respondents in proceedings under the DV Act and that the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act operate in a distinct sphere from proceedings under Section 498A IPC, the DV Act itself providing penal consequences under Section 31 only upon breach of protection orders. Taking note of the fact that the proceedings were still at a nascent stage, the High Court concluded that no case for interference under was made out and accordingly, declined to quash the proceedings.
5. Being aggrieved by the refusal of the High Court to quash the aforesaid criminal proceedings pending before the concerned Magistrates, the present appeals have been preferred.
Criminal proceedings against relatives of a spouse in matrimonial disputes cannot be maintained based on omnibus and generalized allegations devoid of specific overt acts. Such quashing at the thresh....
Criminal proceedings in domestic violence cases require specific allegations and evidence of overt acts; generalized claims do not suffice to establish a prima facie case.
The court emphasized that vague and omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes against family members can lead to misuse of legal provisions, necessitating specific allegations for valid prosecution....
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....
Vague and general allegations in domestic violence cases cannot sustain criminal prosecution; specific instances of harassment must be presented against each accused.
The court emphasized preventing misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes, ruling that vague allegations against family members warrant quashing of proceedings. Specific wrongdoing must be demon....
Vague, omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes are insufficient to sustain criminal charges against in-laws under dowry laws; specific evidence is required to proceed, preventing misuse of legal ....
Criminal prosecutions in matrimonial disputes require prima facie evidence. Vague allegations against relatives without specific involvement do not justify proceeding against them. Courts should prev....
The court distinguished between actionable allegations against the husband and non-actionable vague claims against his relatives, allowing the trial on domestic violence to proceed against the husban....
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
