Supreme Court: While considering the present appeal challenging the refusal to quash proceedings against the accused persons (appellant) for offences under Sections 323 and 498A of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (“Dowry Act”); the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna* and R. Mahadevan, JJ., emphasised that Courts have to be careful and cautious in dealing with matrimonial complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial disputes where the allegations have to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law.
Background:
The complainant got married to the appellant’s brother on 01-05-2014. After a few months into the marriage, due to marital discord, the complainant left her matrimonial home and started residing at her parental home. Thereafter, both the parties initiated multiple matrimonial proceedings against each other.
On 09-11-2023, the complainant lodged an FIR with Police Station Civil Lines, Meerut under Sections 323 and 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act against her husband, mother-in-law and the appellant. The allegations revolved around dowry harassment, physical cruelty which allegedly rendered the complainant’s right hand and right leg paralyzed.
Aggrieved by the FIR, the appellant and his family members approached the Allahabad High Court seeking quashment of the proceedings arising out of the FIR. However, the High Court declined to quash the proceedings stating that although the prayer made in the said Writ Petition was to quash the FIR, the appellant sought the relief of grant of protection under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) only; and that on perusal of the said FIR, a prima facie case of commission of a cognizable offence was made out.
Aggrieved with the refusal, the appellant approached the Supreme Court via the present appeal.
Court’s Assessment:
The Court had to examine whether the High Court was right in refusing to quash the criminal proceedings.
Perusing the facts and allegations stated in the FIR, the Court delved into the provisions under which the complainant had filed charged against the appellant and his family. The Court noted that an offence is punishable under Section 323 of IPC when a person commits an act with an intention to cause or with knowledge that the said act is likely to cause bodily pain, disease or infirmity to another person.
An offence is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC when a husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty. The Explanation under Section 498A of the IPC defines “cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC. The first limb of clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 498A of the IPC states that “cruelty” means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 498A of the IPC states that cruelty means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Further, clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A of the IPC states that cruelty would also include harassment of the woman where such harassment is to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
The Court noted that Section 3 of the Dowry Act states that any person who gives, takes, or abets the giving or taking of dowry shall face a punishment of imprisonment for a minimum term of five years and a fine not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the dowry, whichever is greater. While Section 4 of the Dowry Act talks about the penalty for demanding dowry.
Examining the FIR, the Court pointed out that the allegations against the appellant were vague and omnibus. The Court pointed out that the FIR lacked concrete and precise allegations against the appellant and his family. The Court further pointed out that the complainant failed to impress the Court as to how the alleged harassment has any proximate relationship to the injury which allegedly resulting in paralysing her right hand and leg.
Furthermore, merely stating that the appellant has mentally harassed the complainant with respect to a demand for dowry does not fulfil the ingredients of Section 498A of IPC specially in absence of any cogent material or evidence on record to substantiate the allegations.
The Court explained that “cruelty” cannot be established without specific instances. Invoking the aforesaid provisions, without mentioning any specific detail, weakened the case of the prosecution and cast serious aspersions on the probability of the version of the complainant. Therefore, the Court cannot ignore the missing specifics in the FIR which was the basic premise for invoking the criminal machinery of the State. In such cases involving allegations of cruelty and harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against perpetrators in specific terms to initiate criminal proceedings against them. Therefore, mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specific details would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings against any person.
Relying on the tests laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335, the Court found that that none of the offences alleged against the appellant herein were made out. The allegations of cruelty, mental harassment and voluntarily causing hurt against the appellant herein were vague and general in nature and therefore, the Court applied Bhajan Lal (supra) on the facts of this case. Therefore, the Court opined that it is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution emanating from the FIR to continue. The Court further quoted the observations made in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Bihar, (2025) 3 SCC 735, wherein it was emphasised that, “Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family”.
Therefore, with the afore-stated assessment, the Court quashed the proceedings initiated only with regard to the appellant.
[Shobhit Kumar Mittal v. State of UP, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4069 of 2024, decided on 24-9-2025]
*Judgment by Justice BV Nagarathna
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Saurabh Soni, Adv. Mr. Maneesh Saxena, Adv. Mr. Anupam Singh, AOR Ms. Mannat Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Ms. Apurva Singh, Adv. Mr. Devesh Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Vasasntha Kumar, Adv.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
