Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1441

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Akhil Rana & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Another – Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 412 of 2025
Decided On : 04-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Ms. Reeta Hingmang, Advocate with Mr. Mridul Nag, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate.

Vague allegations in matrimonial disputes do not sustain a criminal complaint; specificity in accusations is required to avoid abuse of legal process.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Quashing of FIR under Sections 498-A, 354, 323, 504, and 506 IPC on grounds of abuse of process - Court emphasizes the need for specific allegations in cases of matrimonial disputes to prevent over-implication of family members. (Paras 40-70).

(B) Courts should exercise caution in matrimonial cases to avoid undue harassment due to vague allegations. The FIR lacks detailed accusations and is deemed a counterblast to the divorce petition. (Paras 68-70).

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, in-laws of the complainant, sought to quash FIR alleging they harassed the complainant for dowry and subjected her to cruelty. Evidence indicated allegations were vague and lacked specific incidents. The complainant had previously sought reconciliation.

Findings of Court:
Court found no prima facie case against the petitioners and noted that the FIR was filed post-divorce petition, indicating ulterior motives.

Issues: Whether the FIR contains sufficient allegations to constitute a case against petitioners and if it is an abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi: High Court held that vague allegations in a matrimonial context are insufficient to proceed; emphasized the need for detailed accusations to avoid misuse of legal provisions.

Result: FIR quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Petitioners, have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS')/(Section 482 of the Cr.PC), for quashing of FIR No. 21 dated 28.01.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered under Sections 498-A, 354, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), which was registered on the basis of zero FIR No.1/2025, dated 28.01.2025, under Sections 498-A, 354, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC with Police Station Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. Petitioner No.1 is husband of respondent No.2, whereas, petitioners No.2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No.2.

2. FIR, in question, is stated to be abuse of process of law and the same is stated to have been lodged by respondent No.2, with an intent/motive to pressurize and harass the petitioners, so that the petitioners could bow down, before the demands of respondent No.2, for payment of unwarranted and unjustified amount of alimony to the tune of one crore rupees, in the matrimonial dispute, which is pending between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2.

3. Brief facts, as pleaded, in the petition, are that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 got married on 05.10.2017 and due to the matrimonial dispute, they could not live together and separated on 01.07.2022. The petitioners dropped respondent No.2, at her parents house in Pathankot. After two months, respondent No.2 got served a legal notice upon petitioner No.1, through her Advocate, in which, she has asserted the fact that she wanted to sort out the dispute amicably, as such, notice was served. She has shown her intention, in the legal notice, that she does not want to divorce petitioner No.1 and she is ready and willing to continue with the marriage obligations sincerely.

4. In the said notice, no accusation has been made against the petitioners. Not only this, she has not made any averment regarding the incident of alleged sexual abuse or any attempt made by petitioner No.2 to outrage her modesty, during her entire stay in the matrimonial home. According to the petitioners, in the said notice, respondent No.2, specifically admitted that petitioner No.2, used to treat her normally, whenever, her husband is out of matrimonial home. In this regard, copy of the legal notice has also been annexed with the petition, as Annexure A-2.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1, had filed a divorce petition, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, on 15.09.2022. In the said proceedings, respondent No.2, has not filed any response, however, on 28.04.2023, she had filed a complaint against the petitioners and on the said complaint, petitioner No.2, was directed by the SHO to mark his presence, in the Police Station, on 29.04.2023. Even, in the said complaint, respondent No.2, has not uttered or mentioned even a single incident of cruelty or sexual harassment inflicted upon her, by the petitioners, especially petitioner No.2.

6. Although, the copy of the said complaint has not been provided to petitioner No.2 by the SHO Police Station, Palampur, however, this incident has specifically been mentioned by the complainant in para 4(iv) of her petition, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure A-3.

7. Petitioners have further pleaded that respondent No.2, thereafter, moved a complaint to the Commission, Mayor/Deputy Mayor of Municipal Corporation Palampur, on 29.04.2023, in which, she has again not averred anything about the cruelty by the petitioners or alleged sexual abuse, by petitioner No.2. Rather, respondent No.2, in the said complaint, has expressed her intention to join the matrimonial home. She has also alleged in the complaint that she just wants to enter in the matrimonial home to see and collect her belongings, which are left over by her in the matrimon