Supreme Court of India
KAILASHBEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 737
- Decided
- 25 September 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the FIR and charge‑sheet were founded on vague, omnibus allegations aimed at furthering a civil property dispute, constituting an abuse of process, and therefore must be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Summary
The complainant, a wife, filed a criminal complaint in 2013 alleging dowry demand, threats, and cruelty by her step‑mother‑in‑law, step‑brother‑in‑law, father‑in‑law and a munim, leading to an FIR under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC and a subsequent chargesheet. The appellants sought quashing of the FIR and chargesheet under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the allegations were vague, omnibus, and motivated by an ongoing civil property dispute between the complainant’s husband and his relatives. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding a prima facie case of cruelty existed. The Supreme Court examined the FIR, noting the lack of specific particulars, the parallel civil suit, and the dismissal of an identical domestic‑violence complaint, concluding that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process. Applying the principles governing the inherent power under Section 482, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would be a travesty of justice and quashed both the FIR and the chargesheet. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and chargesheet under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the complaint is vague, frivolous, and motivated by a civil dispute.
- Whether the High Court erred in finding a prima facie case of cruelty despite the alleged lack of specific particulars.
- Whether the inherent jurisdiction of the court under Section 482 can be exercised after a charge‑sheet has been filed.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 323, s. 34, s. 498A, s. 504, s. 506
Subjects
QuashingCrueltyDowry demandMatrimonial disputesCivil disputeVague allegationsDomestic violence complaint dismissedAbuse of process of lawTravesty of justiceFrivolous FIR
Judgment
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 62 : 2024 INSC 737
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors.
v.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 4003 of 2024)
25 September 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
FIR was filed against the appellants under Sections 498A, 323, 504,
506 read with Section 34 IPC. Whether the High Court was justified
in dismissing the petition under Section 482, CrPC for quashing
of the said FIR and the chargesheet against the appellants and
holding that a prima facie case of cruelty was made out against
them under Section 498A, Penal Code, 1860.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w s.34 –
Ingredients of – When not made out – Complaint filed by
respondent no.2-wife making vague allegations alleging dowry
demand and threat by the appellants (step mother-in-law, step
brother-in-law, father-in-law and one other person) to deny her
and her husband a share in the property – Petition u/s.482,
CrPC filed by the appellants for quashing, dismissed by High
Court – Correctness:
Held: Impugned judgment set aside – Criminal proceedings
were filed with mala fide intention only to harass the appellants –
Though all the allegations related to demand of dowry, the
complainant chose not to involve her husband in the criminal
proceedings – Complainant and her husband distributed amongst
themselves, the institution of civil and criminal proceedings
against the appellants with the husband instituting the civil suit and
the complainant filing criminal proceedings – The provocation for
the Complaint/FIR was essentially the property dispute between
father and son and it intended only to further their interest of
the civil dispute – Allegations made were general, vague, and
omnibus and lacked in particulars and details – The essence of
* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 63
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
the complaint was in the alleged threat to deprive the husband
any share in the property with respect to which the husband
had already filed the suit for declaration – No offence made
out on the basis of vague and unclear allegations – Further,
the domestic violence complaint filed by respondent no.2 with
identical allegations was also rejected as being false and
untenable – None of the ingredients of ss.498A, 323, 504, 506
r/w s.34 made out, criminal proceedings against the appellants
are abuse of process of law – FIR and chargesheet quashed.
[Paras 13-15, 17, 18]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Constitution of
India – Article 226 – Duty of the court, when complaint/FIR is
frivolous/vexatious/instituted with ulterior motive or is civil
in nature – Discussed.
Quashing – Of criminal proceedings after filing of charge
sheet – Permissibility:
Held: There is no prohibition against quashing of the criminal
proceedings even after the filing of charge sheet. [Para 16]
Case Law Cited
Mohammad Wajid and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [2023]
11 SCR 313 : (2023) SCC OnLine SC 951; Jaswant Singh v.
State of Punjab [2021] 6 SCR 1100 : (2021) SCC OnLine SC
1007; Usha Chakraborty v. State of W.B.(2023) SCC OnLine SC
90; Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [2009] 14 SCR 1074 : (2009) 10 SCC
184; Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v. State of A.P. [2024] 2 SCR
252 : (2024) SCC OnLine SC 127; Kahkashan Kausar v. State
of Bihar [2022] 1 SCR 558 : (2022) 6 SCC 599; Achin Gupta v.
State of Haryana [2024] 6 SCR 129 : (2024) SCC OnLine SC
759; Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2018] 13
SCR 1028 : (2019) 11 SCC 706; Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of
Gujarat [2011] 8 SCR 815 : (2011) 7 SCC 59; A.M. Mohan v.
State [2024] 3 SCR 722 : (2024) SCC OnLine SC 339; Mamta
Shailesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand (2024) SCC OnLine
SC 136 – relied on.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
64 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Quashing; Cruelty; Dowry demand; Matrimonial disputes; Dispute
civil in nature; General, vague, omnibus allegations lacking in
particulars and details; Domestic violence complaint dismissed;
Abuse of process of law/criminal process; Travesty of justice;
Complaint/FIR frivolous/vexatious, civil in nature.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 4003
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CRLA No. 4015 of 2014
Appearances for Parties
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, S. Niranjan Reddy, Sidharth Luthra, Sr.
Advs., Ms. Shally Bhasin, Prateek Gupta, Prateek Yadav, Siddharth
Seem, Ms. Palak Arora, S. S. Shroff, Jay Kansara, Chiranjivi Sharma,
Vasu Gupta, Kushagra Raghuvanshi, Karanvir Gogia, Prudhvi Samrat,
Pranaya Goyal, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sanjeev Despande, Sr. Adv., Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth
Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav
Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Mahesh
Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Victor Das, Shashwat
Singh, E. C. Agrawala, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This criminal appeal is against the dismissal of a petition under Section
482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet
against the appellants herein. By order dated 01.05.2018, this Court
issued notice in the Special Leave Petition and stayed the criminal
proceedings. The short and necessary facts for disposal of this
criminal appeal are as follows.
3. Respondent no. 2 is the complainant. She was married to one
Niraj Mahendrabhai Patel in 2002, and he is not a party in these
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 65
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
proceedings. On 01.03.2013, the complainant filed a complaint,
pursuant to which an FIR was registered on 25.03.2013 at P.S.
Jalna, Maharashtra under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with
Section 34 IPC against the appellants, who are her step mother-in-law
(appellant no. 1), step brother-in-law (appellant no. 2), father-in-law
(appellant no. 3), and the Munim (appellant no. 4). The chargesheet
in this case was filed on 30.07.2013.
4. A precise but accurate description of the allegations in the FIR are that,
i) her husband is the son of the appellant no. 3 and his late first wife.
Thereafter, the appellant no. 3 married appellant no. 1 and their son
is appellant no. 2. She lived with her husband, son and daughter in
Mumbai, from where her husband was managing the family business
by giving complete accounts to the family, ii) at the time of marriage
her father gave certain articles and cash as dowry, and iii) she also
held a joint locker at a bank in Anand, Gujarat with appellant no. 1,
keys to which were kept by appellant no. 1 alone. iv) At the time of
the birth of her daughter, which was eight years before the complaint,
appellant nos. 1 and 3 visited her at the hospital and threatened
to deprive her of a share in the property and refused to return the
gold and silver ornaments that were kept in the locker. v) About
2-4 months after the delivery, when she returned to her matrimonial
house in Mumbai, appellant nos. 1 and 3 initially refused to take her
and later deprived her of food and physically assaulted her. vi) Even
when her son was born, which was four years before the complaint,
appellants no. 1 to 3 visited her at Jalna and threatened to deprive
her and her husband any share in the property. vii) She has also
alleged that appellant no. 2 hindered her daughter’s education by
cancelling her school admission. viii) Against appellant no. 4, who
is the Munim, she has alleged that he threatened her that the family
property only belongs to appellant no. 2 and that the complainant, and
her husband will have no share in it. ix) Under these circumstances,
being frightened, she left the house of the appellants along with her
husband and children and started living in Jalna, her parental home.
x) Even at Jalna, the accused persons threatened her and asked
her to bring Rs. 50,00,000/- for the future of her son and daughter.
There is danger to her life and also to the life of her husband and
children and therefore the complaint on 01.03.2013. The FIR was
registered on 25.03.2013, and chargesheet came to be filed on
30.07.2013.
66 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
5. The appellants filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973
for quashing the FIR dated 25.03.2013 and the chargesheet dated
30.07.2013. By the order impugned herein, the High Court held that
a prima facie case of cruelty is made out under Section 498A. The
High Court also observed that the complainant specifically referred
to instances of cruelty and attributed overt acts to each appellant.
Rejecting the contention of the appellants that neither the Police
Station, nor the Courts will have jurisdiction, the Court held that Jalna
would have jurisdiction as per Sections 178 and 179 of the CrPC as
some part of the offence was committed there.
6. The appellants have preferred the present appeal against the High
Court’s order. While issuing notice on 01.05.2018, this Court also
stayed further proceedings.
7. We have heard Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr Sidharth Luthra,
learned senior counsels for the appellants and Mr. Shrirang B Varma,
learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra and Mr. Sanjeev
Despande, learned senior counsel for respondent no. 2.
7.1 The learned senior counsels for the appellants have contended
that the allegations in the FIR are general and omnibus in nature
and lack material particulars bereft of any details, rendering the
complaint vague and obscure. There is an existing civil dispute
between the father and the son and as such this FIR is an abuse
of the process of criminal law. Further, Section 161 statements
of witnesses are identical and are based on information from
respondent no. 2. They are vague and do not have material
particulars about the date and time of the incident. Our attention
is also drawn to the judgment and order dated 16.01.2019,
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna dismissing
identical allegations, but under Section 12 of the Domestic
Violence Act. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent supported the decision and reasoning adopted by
the High Court.
8. Analysis: After identifying certain allegations in the Complaint/FIR,
the High Court came to a quick conclusion that there are specific
allegations against each of the accused. After referring to certain
precedents on the scope and ambit of the power under Section 482
CrPC, the High Court came to a conclusion that exercise of power
under Section 482 for quashing an FIR/Complaint is not warranted in
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 67
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
the facts and circumstances of the case. Beyond holding that there
are specific allegations, there is no other analysis. The duty of the
High Court, when its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article
226 of the Constitution is invoked on the ground that the Complaint/
FIR is manifestly frivolous, vexatious or instituted with ulterior motive
for wreaking vengeance, to examine the allegations with care and
caution is highlighted in a recent decision of this Court in Mohammad
Wajid and Another v. State of U.P. and Others1:
“34. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes
a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely. We say so because once the complainant decides
to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive
for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would
ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all
the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure
that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such
that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute
the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough
for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/
complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether
the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence
are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings,
the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case over
and above the averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The
Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482
of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not
1 [2023] 11 SCR 313 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951.
68 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered
to take into account the overall circumstances leading
to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation. Take
for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been
registered over a period of time. It is in the background
of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRS
assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of
wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge
as alleged.”
8.1 Keeping in mind the broad principle as enunciated in the above
referred precedent, we will now examine the Complaint/FIR
challenged by the appellants in the Section 482 proceeding.
9. The FIR in this case is rather unique, in as much as the complainant
has chosen not to involve her husband in the criminal proceedings,
particularly when all the allegations relate to demand of dowry. It
appears that the complainant and her husband have distributed
amongst themselves, the institution of civil and criminal proceedings
against the appellants. While the husband institutes the civil suit, his
wife, the complainant has chosen to initiate criminal proceedings.
Interestingly, there is no reference of one proceeding in the other. On
27.02.2013, the husband filed the Special Civil Suit No. 35 of 2013
in Anand against the three appellants, i.e. his father, stepmother and
stepbrother seeking for a declaration that the property is ancestral
in nature and that the father has no right to alienate or dispose of
the property. In that suit the husband also sought a declaration that
he is entitled to use the trademark of the family business. Though
the written statement filed by the appellants in the suit is brought
on record, we are not inclined to examine the details of the civil
dispute, but suffice to note the existence of a highly contentious
civil dispute between the complainant’s husband at one hand and
her father-in-law and others on the other hand.
9.1 While the husband chose to institute the civil suit on 27.02.2013,
the complainant filed the present criminal complaint on
01.03.2013 alleging demand of dowry and threat by appellants
that she and her husband will be denied a share in the property.
The provocation for the Complaint/FIR is essentially the property
dispute between father and son.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 69
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
9.2 Further, the rights and claims in the suit are the very basis
and provocation for filing the criminal cases. The Complaint/
FIR is replete with just one theme i.e. that the appellants are
threatening them that they will deny share in the property.
The Complaint/FIR is intended only to further their interest of
the civil dispute. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P 2 this Court
cautioned that:
“8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has
to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its
jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the
matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which
is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak
of criminal offence.
Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other
remedies available in law. Before issuing process a
criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution.
For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court
has laid certain principles on the basis of which the
High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has
to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
9.3 The duty of the court, when FIR has predominating and
overwhelming civil flavour is also reflected in the opinion of
this Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab,3 this court
observed that:
“19. From the above discussion on the settled legal
principles, it is clear from the facts of the present
case that there was a clear abuse of the process
of the Court and further that the Court had a duty
to secure the ends of justice. We say so for the
following reasons;
a) The allegations made in the FIR had an
overwhelmingly and predominatingly a civil
2 (2000) 2 SCC 636.
3 [2021] 6 SCR 1100 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1007.
70 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
flavour inasmuch as the complainant alleged that
he had paid money to Gurmeet Singh, the main
accused to get employment for his son abroad.
If Gurmeet Singh failed the complainant could
have filed a suit for recovery of the amount paid
for not fulfilling the promise.
…
20. In our considered view, the High Court erred in
firstly not considering the entire material on record and
further in not appreciating the fact that the dispute,
if any, was civil in nature and that the complainant
had already settled his score with the main accused
Gurmeet Singh against whom the proceedings have
been closed as far back as 26.09.2014. In this
scenario, there remains no justification to continue
with the proceedings against the appellant.”
10. We will now examine the ‘specific allegations’ in the FIR/complaint.
Firstly, the complainant referred to certain items which are said
to have been given by her father at the time of marriage. These
items are (i) one Scorpio car; (ii) T.V.; (iii) fridge; (iv) DVD Tape; (v)
silver utensils; (vi) 100 to 150 tolas gold; (vii) and Rs. 5 lacs. This
allegation relates to the year 2002 and the present complaint is of the
year 2013. It is important to mention at this very stage that identical
allegations in a DV case filed by the complainant were taken up
at trial and the Judicial Magistrate, First Class had disbelieved the
complainant’s version. We will be dealing with the judgment of the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class in little more detail in the succeeding
paras of the judgment. The second allegation relates to a bare
statement that there exists a joint locker and that the keys of the
said locker are with her stepmother-in-law, that is the appellant no.
1. Even on this, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class has observed
that there are no details whatsoever, about the bank or the locker.
10.1 The tendency to make general, vague, and omnibus allegation
is noticed by this Court in many decisions. In Usha Chakraborty
v. State of W.B.,4 this court observed that:
4 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 71
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
“16... the respondent alleged commission of offences
under Sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420
and 120B, IPC against the appellants. A bare perusal
of the said allegation and the ingredients to attract
them, as adverted to hereinbefore would reveal that
the allegations are vague and they did not carry
the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged
offences.... The ingredients to attract the alleged
offence referred to hereinbefore and the nature of
the allegations contained in the application filed by
the respondent would undoubtedly make it clear
that the respondent had failed to make specific
allegation against the appellants herein in respect
of the aforesaid offences. The factual position thus
would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of
criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid
incident and further that the dispute involved is
essentially of civil nature. The appellants and the
respondents have given a cloak of criminal offence
in the issue ...”
10.2 Similarly, dealing with allegations lacking in particulars and
details, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti,5 this court observed that:
“7. ...what strikes us is that there are no particulars
given as to the date on which the ornaments were
handed over, as to the exact number of ornaments
or their description and as to the date when the
ornaments were asked back and were refused. Even
the weight of the ornaments is not mentioned in the
complaint and it is a general and vague complaint
that the ornaments were sometime given in the
custody of the appellants and they were not returned.
What strikes us more is that even in Para 10 of the
complaint where the complainant says that she asked
for her clothes and ornaments which were given to
the accused and they refused to give these back,
the date is significantly absent.”
5 [2009] 14 SCR 1074 : (2009) 10 SCC 184.
72 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
11. The third allegation is against appellant no. 1, the mother-in-law, who
is said to have threatened the complainant when she gave birth to
a girl child. The threat is that the complainant will not get her gold
and silver ornaments, and her husband will not get any share in the
property. The allegations are again vague, lacking in basic details.
The essence of the complaint is in the alleged threat to deprive the
husband any share in the property with respect to which the husband
has already filed the suit for declaration.
12. The complaint also refers to a small incident where the complainant’s
brother accompanied her to the matrimonial house, when the
appellants no. 1 and 3 are alleged to have refused to take her back
but on persuasion by her brother, she was allowed to stay. There
is also a vague allegation that, when the complainant gave birth to
a second child, appellants 1 and 2 came and “quarrelled” with the
complainant, her brother, parents and threatened them. This Court
had occasion to examine the phenomenon of general and omnibus
allegations in the cases of matrimonial disputes. In Mamidi Anil Kumar
Reddy v. State of A.P.6 this Court observed that:
“14. ...A bare perusal of the complaint, statement of
witnesses’ and the charge-sheet shows that the allegations
against the Appellants are wholly general and omnibus in
nature; even if they are taken in their entirety, they do not
prima facie make out a case against the Appellants. The
material on record neither discloses any particulars of the
offences alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations
assigned to any of the Appellants in the commission of
the offences.
15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes
is not unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar alias
Sonam v. State of Bihar, this Court dealt with a similar
case wherein the allegations made by the complainant-wife
against her in-laws u/s. 498A and others were vague and
general, lacking any specific role and particulars. The court
proceeded to quash the FIR against the accused persons
6 2024 SCC OnLine SC 127.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 73
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
and noted that such a situation, if left unchecked, would
result in the abuse of the process of law.”
13. There is also an allegation against the appellant no. 2 about which
the complainant passingly mentioned that “my daughter’s education
disturbed since my brother-in-law Rahul cancelled her school
admission by signing fraudulently”. The complaint is again silent
about when such an act was done, where was it done, which was
the school in which the admission was cancelled, what documents
were signed for such cancellation, and what is fraud played by
him. It is impossible to conceive of any offence on the basis of
such vague and unclear allegations. Lastly, there is an allegation
against the appellant no. 4, the Munim against whom it is said “Vijay
Ranchhodbhai Patel is telling stories to my in-laws against me, my
husband and my children and making them to mentally torture us”.
The Munim is said to have threatened them and ask them to go
away as there is nothing left for them as the entire property belongs
to Rahul, appellant no. 2.
13.1 In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar 7 this Court noticed the
injustice that may be caused when parties are forced to go
through tribulations of a trial based on general and omnibus
allegations. The relevant portion of the observation is as under:
“11. …in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the
country has also increased significantly and there
is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the
institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This
has resulted in an increased tendency to employ
provisions such as Section 498-A IPC as instruments
to settle personal scores against the husband and
his relatives.
18. ... upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated
1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are
levelled against the appellants. The complainant
alleged that “all accused harassed her mentally
and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy”.
Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have
7 [2022] 1 SCR 558 : (2022) 6 SCC 599.
74 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
been made against either of the appellants herein
i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any
specific role in furtherance of the general allegations
made against them. This simply leads to a situation
wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by
each accused in furtherance of the offence. The
allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus
and can at best be said to have been made out on
account of small skirmishes... However, as far as
the appellants are concerned, the allegations made
against them being general and omnibus, do not
warrant prosecution.
21. …it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to
go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and
omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation
where the relatives of the complainant’s husband
are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted
by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial
leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe
scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must,
therefore, be discouraged.”
14. One important event that gives us a clear impression that the criminal
proceedings were instituted with a mala fide intention, only to harass
the appellants, is the filing of the Domestic Violence case. After the
institution of the Civil Case on 27.02.2013 and thereafter the present
Criminal Complaint/FIR, respondent no. 2 filed a complaint under
Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act on 06.04.2013, based on
similar allegations. The DV complaint refers to the same items, a
Scorpio car, T.V., fridge, DVD Tape, silver articles, 100 to 150 tolas
gold and cash of Rs. 5 lacs as dowry. Again, there is an allegation
that the accused have threatened that she will not get a share in the
property as she gave birth to a girl child. There are similar allegations
against appellant no. 2 as well as the Munim, the appellant no. 4.
The domestic violence complaint went to trial and culminated in a
detailed judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna dated
16.01.2019. We are informed that the judgment and order has become
final as there was no appeal against the said order. While dismissing
the domestic violence complaint, the learned judge observed as under:
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 75
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
“19. During cross examination, the applicant admitted
that the property dispute is going on in between her
and respondents. Again, she voluntarily stated that the
property dispute is pending in between her husband and
parents in law. Moreover, the applicant appears deposed
specifically that where ever Joint Bank Accounts are in
the name of respondents, her and her husband, in such
cases, respondents shall be prohibited from operation said
accounts and she shall be allowed to operate. It further
appears that the applicant family shall be provided same
level of accommodation as holding by respondents.
20. The above ocular evidence and admission are clearly
suggesting that the applicant has brought the present
application at the behest of her husband and with ulterior
motive to grab property which the husband of the applicant
may be entitled by other provisions of law. The wordings
used in the application reveal selfish nature of the applicant.
Hence, in the given circumstances, I am of opinion that
it would be unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of the
applicant without corroboration.
21. It seems that the applicant has not brought any other
cogent and reliable evidence in support of her said oral
evidence. Moreover, it appears that the case filed U/s 498(A)
of IPC bearing RCC No. 376/2014 is not yet concluded.
There is no record showing that respondents have been held
guilty till today in that matter. It means that said allegations
are not yet proved and not available for corroboration
purpose. Therefore, I am coming to the conclusion that there
is no cogent and reliable evidence as to domestic violence
and accordingly I record my finding to Point No. 1 as “No”.”
15. We are not referring to all the findings of the Court dismissing the
domestic violence complaint. It is sufficient to note that identical
allegations were examined in detail, subjected to strict scrutiny,
and rejected as being false and untenable. This case is yet another
instance of abuse of criminal process and it would not be fair and
just to subject the appellants to the entire criminal law process. In
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana,8 this court observed that:
8 [2024] 6 SCR 129 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759.
76 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“20. It is now well settled that the power under Section 482
of the Cr. P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and
with caution, only where such exercise is justified by the
tests laid down in the Section itself. It is also well settled
that Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. does not confer any new
power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power,
which the Court possessed before the enactment of the
Criminal Procedure Code. There are three circumstances
under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised,
namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of Court, and iii) to otherwise
secure the ends of justice.
21. …It would be an abuse of process of the court to
allow any action which would result in injustice and
prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers,
the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if
it finds that the initiation or continuance of it amounts
to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these
proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice.
When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court
may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is
sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the
materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and
whether any offence is made out even if the allegations
are accepted in toto.
36. For the foregoing reasons, we have reached to the
conclusion that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to
continue against the Appellant, the same will be nothing
short of abuse of process of law & travesty of justice. This
is a fit case wherein, the High Court should have exercised
its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for
the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings.”
16. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that after investigation,
charge sheet has already been filed and that this Court should not
interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The chargesheet is
on record and we have examined it carefully, it simply reproduces
all the wordings of the complaint. There is nothing new even after
investigation, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint are exactly
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 77
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
the allegations in the charge sheet. Even otherwise, the position of
law is well entrenched. There is no prohibition against quashing of
the criminal proceedings even after the charge sheet has been filed.
In Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi).9
“14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of
the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once
the charge-sheet is filed, petition for quashing of FIR is
untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission,
keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj
A. v. State of Gujarat...
15. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the
provision invoked by the accused before the High Court is
Section 482 CrPC and that this Court is hearing an appeal
from an order under Section 482 CrPC….
16. There is nothing in the words of this section which
restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent
the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only
to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that
the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482
CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with
the trial court. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that
proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered
with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and
the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On
the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process
caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken
the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power
is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of
power of any court.”
Similar view is taken by this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of
Gujarat;10 A.M. Mohan v. State;11 Mamta Shailesh Chandra v. State
of Uttarakhand.12
9 [2018] 13 SCR 1028 : (2019) 11 SCC 706.
10 [2011] 8 SCR 815 : (2011) 7 SCC 59.
11 [2024] 3 SCR 722 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339.
12 2024 SCC OnLine SC 136.
78 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
17. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that
none of the ingredients of Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with
Section 34 IPC are made out. We have no hesitation in arriving at
the conclusion that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue
against the appellants, the same will be nothing short of abuse of
process of law and travesty of justice. Though the appellants have
also argued on the ground that Jalna Police Station and the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jalna did not have jurisdiction, we are not inclined
to examine that position in view of our finding that the Complaint/
FIR and the chargesheet cannot be sustained.
18. For the reasons above mentioned, we allow the present appeal, set
aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court in Criminal
Application No. 4015 of 2014 dated 05.05.2017, and quash FIR
dated 25.03.2013 bearing Crime No. 81/2013 filed under Sections
498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC at P.S. Jalna and the
chargesheet dated 30.07.2013 bearing Chargesheet No. 123/2013
in the above FIR.
Result of the Case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Quashing"Sign in to search