Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Ujjwal Chand Mehta And Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. And Anr. - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 1083 of 2023
Decided On : 26-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hemant Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G. Mr. Narender Guleria, Advocate

In 498A matrimonial cases, quash proceedings against relatives on vague/general allegations lacking specific roles, especially with FIR delay, to curb family over-implication and process abuse.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent powers to quash FIR and proceedings - Matrimonial dispute - IPC Sections 498A, 377, 504 r/w 34 - Allegations of cruelty, unnatural offence, intentional insult - Vague, general, omnibus allegations against relatives without specific role or instances - Delay of over one year in lodging FIR after leaving matrimonial home - Tendency to over-implicate entire family in domestic quarrels - No prima facie case of cruelty - Proceedings amount to abuse of process - Quashed qua relatives. (Paras 1, 3-6, 13-14, 21-29)

(B) Exercise of power u/s 482 CrPC - Not to evaluate truthfulness but check if material rules out assertions, prevents abuse - Categories: allegations absurd/improbable, over-implication of non-residing relatives, vexatious proceedings - Scrutinize attending circumstances like delay, multiple family members roped in. (Paras 11-12, 15-19)

Facts of the case:
Complainant married, alleges torture for dowry shortly after marriage, physical beatings, forcible unnatural relations by husband, general mistreatment by in-laws, ousted from home after one month but tolerated to save marriage; left home on specific date, resided with brother; FIR lodged over a year later with brothers present; investigation led to charge-sheet with vague witness statements.

Findings of Court:
No specific allegations or roles against relatives; short, instigative remark against one insufficient; general statements by witnesses; delay indicates deliberation; vague claims fall short of cruelty definition.

Issues: Whether allegations disclose prima facie offences against relatives justifying trial; whether material warrants quashing to secure ends of justice and prevent family harassment in matrimonial cases.

Ratio Decidendi: In matrimonial disputes, courts must carefully scrutinize vague/general allegations against husband's relatives for over-implication; specific conduct/participation required for cruelty; inherent powers exercised where proceedings frivolous/vexatious, causing abuse of process without serving justice.

Result: Petition allowed; FIR and resultant proceedings quashed qua petitioners.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek quashing of fir alleging false implication. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. complainant alleges cruelty, dowry demands, unnatural relations. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. precedents guide quashing frivolous matrimonial proceedings. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. vague allegations against relatives insufficient for section 498a. (Para 13 , 15 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. fir quashed qua petitioners due to lack specifics. (Para 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

1.The petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr. P.C.) for quashing of FIR No. 28 of 2023, dated 26.7.2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 498A, 377 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), with Women Police Station, Solan, District Solan, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any.

2. According to the petitioners, they have falsely been implicated in the said case, at the instance of respondent No. 2, whereas, according to them, allegations against them are baseless and without any substance.

3. According to the petitioners, no specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners, except naming them, in the said FIR.

4. As per the further stand of the petitioners, respondent No. 2 had left the matrimonial home on 31.5.2022 and started residing at Solan. Thereafter, after waiting for more than one year, she has lodged the FIR in question, just to harass the petitioners.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that marriage of the complainant was solemnized in the State of Rajasthan, where she was residing, in the matrimonial home, and if the petitioners were torturing the complainant, she would have lodged the FIR, immediately, in Rajasthan itself.

6. It is the further case of the petitioners that vague allegations have been levelled against them, as according to them, no specific role has been attributed to the petitioners in the FIR in question. They have further pleaded that respondent No. 2 had solemnized the marriage with the son of petitioners No. 1 and 2 by playing fraud, as she was earlier married and without any legal divorce, she had solemnized the marriage with the son of the petitioners No. 1 and 2, just to grab money from them.

7. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Hemant Thakur, Advocate, has prayed that the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, may kindly be quashed.

8. When, put to notice, police filed the status report, disclosing therein that on 26.7.2023, respondent No. 2 appeared before the Police, alongwith her brothers Gautam Chand and Dev Anand Gautam, and made a complaint, disclosing therein that she has been treated with cruelty by her husband Arihant Mehta, her father-in-law, her mother-in-law, sister-in law( sister of her husband), brother-in-law (husband of sister-in-law) and brother-in-law (brother of her husband).

8.1 According to her, she was married to Arihant Mehta on 25.4.2021, as per Hindu rites and customs. Prior to the marriage, she is stated to be residing with her brother Gautam Chand, in District Solan. In marriage, her brother had given 200-210 grams of gold and 85,000/- cash and other items to her in-laws. However, after 10-15 days of marriage, her husband and the petitioners had started torturing her for not bringing adequate dowry. When, she confronted her husband, he had started beating her.

8.2 According to the complainant, she was bearing the cruel behaviour of her husband, to save his newly solemnized marriage.

8.3 As per the further stand of the complainant, after about one month of marriage, her husband asked her to hand over the jewellery and cash, but, when the complainant refused to do so, then her husband and his family members beaten her up and threw her out of matrimonial hom