KAMAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

          [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2736 : 2025 INSC 504

                       Kamal & Ors.
                            v.
                  State of Gujarat & Anr.
             (Criminal Appeal No. 2042 of 2025)
                          16 April 2025
           [Manoj Misra and Manmohan, JJ.]


                    Issue for Consideration
Appellants sought quashing of FIR in respect of offences u/ss.498-A
and s.114 of IPC u/s.482 of CrPC. By the impugned order dated
01.02.2024, the High Court dismissed the petition.

                           Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – s.498-A and s.114 – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – The appellants 1, 2 and 3 are
husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively, of the
second respondent – On 15.05.2019, the first appellant filed for
divorce – On 20.07.2019, the second respondent lodged the
impugned FIR – Appellants sought quashing of the impugned
criminal proceedings – The High Court opined that once the
allegations are there, whether they are true or false, would be
determined during the trial, therefore the quashing petition is
liable to be dismissed – Correctness:
Held: What is important, for the purposes of deciding this case,
is that in the FIR there is no specific allegation of demand of
dowry by the accused – Further, the allegation of harassment of
the complainant at the instance of the parents-in-law is limited to
extending taunts and custody related issues of minor children –
However, there is no disclosure about the nature of those taunts –
Admittedly, the second respondent was married to the first appellant
in the year 2005 and for last several years since before lodging
the FIR, the complainant had been working and staying in rented
accommodations at different places – Besides that, the FIR was
lodged on 20.07.2019, just three days after service of summons
of the divorce proceedings initiated by the first appellant – There
are some allegations of assault and of physical and mental
torture of the complainant, but they are against the husband – As
against the parents-in-law, the allegations are only of extending
taunts and of not parting with the money for managing household
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                             2737

                    Kamal & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.


     expenses – Specific details in respect of those taunts have not
     been disclosed – In the circumstances, no case to proceed against
     the parents-in-law, namely, the second and third appellant is
     made out – In so far as the first appellant is concerned, there are
     allegations of physical and mental torture of the complainant at
     his behest – Consequently, the case may proceed qua the first
     appellant. [Paras 11-13]

     Penal Code, 1860 – s.498-A – Code of Criminal Procedure,
     1973 – s.482 – One party files for divorce and in counterblast
     other party files FIR –Allegations levelled after many years of
     marriage – Pedantic approach of the High Court:
     Held: The High adopted an extremely pedantic approach while
     dealing with the quashing petition of the appellants – No doubt, in
     ordinary course, while exercising power u/s.482 of the CrPC, the
     Court is not required to test the correctness of the allegations, but
     in matters arising from matrimonial disputes, particularly where the
     allegations are levelled after many years of marriage and, that too,
     after one party initiates divorce proceeding against the other, the
     Court must be circumspect in taking the allegations at their face
     value – Rather, it must examine, where allegations of mala fides
     are there, whether those allegations have been levelled with an
     oblique purpose – More so, while considering the prayer of the
     relatives of the husband. [Para 13]

                                 List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                              List of Keywords
     Quashing of FIR; Correctness of the allegations; Matrimonial
     disputes; Many years of marriage; FIR in counterblast to divorce
     proceedings; Assault and of physical and mental torture; Parents-
     in-law.

                             Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     2042 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 01.02.2024 of the High Court
     of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in CRMA No. 16100 of 2021
2738                                                      [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Mohd Parvez Dabas, Uzmi Jameel Husain, Nadeem Qureshi,
     Syed Mehdi Imam.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Prashant Bhagwati, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Siddhant Sharma, Prafull
     Bhardwaj.

               Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Order

1.   Leave granted.
2.   This appeal arises from a petition filed by the appellants, under
     Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short the
     CrPC), seeking quashing of the First Information Report (for short
     FIR) (C.R. No. I-163 of 2019 at Chandkheda Police Station, District
     Ahmedabad City) and the criminal proceeding arising therefrom,
     pending as Criminal Case No. 116 of 2020 on the file of the Chief
     Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandhinagar, in respect of offences
     punishable under Sections 498-A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
     1860 (for short “the IPC”). By the impugned order dated 01.02.2024
     the High Court of Gujarat dismissed the petition.
3.   The appellants 1, 2 and 3 are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-
     law, respectively, of the second respondent. The second respondent
     was married to the first appellant on 05.09.2005. On 15.05.2019,
     the first appellant filed for divorce. The summons of the divorce
     proceedings were served upon the second respondent on 17.07.2019.
     On 20.07.2019, the second respondent lodged the impugned FIR.
     After investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against the appellants
     giving rise to the impugned criminal proceedings.
4.   The appellants sought quashing of the impugned criminal proceedings
     on the ground that it is vexatious, a counterblast to the divorce
     proceedings and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.
5.   The High Court rejected the prayer of the appellants on the ground
     that the FIR alleges of mental harassment of the complainant and
     there are also allegations, though bereft of details, regarding demand
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                       2739

                    Kamal & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.


     of money earned by the complainant by way of salary. The High Court
     opined that once the allegations are there, whether they are true or
     false, would be determined during the trial, therefore the quashing
     petition is liable to be dismissed.
6.   Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, this appeal has been filed.
7.   The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the
     allegations levelled against the appellant are not relating to demand
     of dowry. Rather, the thrust is on first appellant’s affair with another
     lady. Though some allegations are there in respect of mental and
     physical torture of the complainant, they are completely vague
     without reference to any specific event. Moreover, the parents in
     law of the complainant have been residing separate therefore their
     implication is clearly mala fide. Besides above, the FIR is a counter
     blast to the divorce proceedings. Further, this is a peculiar case
     where the allegations in respect of harassment have come after 14
     (fourteen) years of marriage and only three days after the summons
     of the divorce proceedings were served upon the complainant (the
     informant). In these circumstances, it is submitted, the continuance
     of the proceedings against the appellants, particularly the parents
     in law of the second respondent, would be abuse of the process of
     the Court.
8.   Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent has submitted
     that this is a case where investigation has led to submission of
     charge-sheet, therefore the correctness of the allegations would be
     determined during trial and not at this stage. It has been submitted
     that allegations make out a case of mental and physical torture of
     the complainant therefore an offence punishable under Section 498-A
     of the IPC is made out against the appellants.
9.   We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the
     materials on record.
10. A perusal of the impugned FIR would disclose that the complainant
    at the time of lodging the FIR had been living with her own parents.
    The allegations are that initially, after marriage, there were no
    issues. Later, when parents in law started living with her husband,
    she had to suffer taunts at their end on trivial issues. When she
    complained about this to her husband, he sided with his parents and
    even assaulted the complainant. It is alleged that she informed her
2740                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     parents and uncle about this, who counselled her to have patience
     in the interest of the family. FIR also discloses that since 2008 she
     is having a job. Initially with Ugam Solutions and, later, as a lecturer
     for nine years. She admits of having stayed at different places in
     rented accommodation post her marriage. However, she alleges that
     she used to hand over her salary to her father-in-law who used to
     deprive her of her money. Besides that, she alleges of her husband
     having an affair with his business partner for the last two years and
     because of that he had been constantly torturing her, both physically
     and mentally, to end the relationship and with that motive divorce
     petition has been filed.
11. What is important, for the purposes of deciding this case, is that in
    the FIR there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry by the
    accused. Further, the allegation of harassment of the complainant
    at the instance of the parents in law is limited to extending taunts
    and custody related issues of minor children. However, there is no
    disclosure about the nature of those taunts. Admittedly, the second
    respondent was married to the first appellant in the year 2005 and
    for last several years since before lodging the FIR, the complainant
    had been working and staying in rented accommodations at different
    places. Besides that, the FIR was lodged on 20.07.2019, just three
    days after service of summons of the divorce proceedings initiated by
    the first appellant. In these circumstances, we will have to consider
    whether the impugned proceedings are vexatious and mala fide,
    particularly in the context of a matrimonial dispute where time and
    again Courts have been cautioned to be circumspect to obviate
    malicious prosecution of family members of the main accused.
12. Even if we assume that there are some allegations of assault and of
    physical and mental torture of the complainant, but they are against
    the husband. As against the parents in law, the allegations are only
    of extending taunts and of not parting with the money for managing
    household expenses. Specific details in respect of those taunts have
    not been disclosed. Moreover, a few taunts here and there is a part
    of everyday life which for happiness of the family are usually ignored.
    Interestingly, as per own allegations in the FIR, the complainant
    admits that when she reported those issues to her parents and
    uncle, she was counselled to bear patience. In the circumstances,
    in our considered view, no case to proceed against the parents in
    law, namely, the second and third appellant is made out. In so far
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                      2741

                    Kamal & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.


     as the first appellant is concerned, there are allegations of physical
     and mental torture of the complainant at his behest. Consequently,
     the case may proceed qua the first appellant.
13. Before parting, we would like to observe that the High adopted an
    extremely pedantic approach while dealing with the quashing petition
    of the appellants. No doubt, in ordinary course, while exercising power
    under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court is not required to test the
    correctness of the allegations, but in matters arising from matrimonial
    disputes, particularly where the allegations are levelled after many
    years of marriage and, that too, after one party initiates divorce
    proceeding against the other, the Court must be circumspect in taking
    the allegations at their face value. Rather, it must examine, where
    allegations of mala fides are there, whether those allegations have
    been levelled with an oblique purpose. More so, while considering
    the prayer of the relatives of the husband.
14. In view of the discussion above, in our view, the continuance of
    the proceedings as against the parents-in-law (second and third
    appellants) would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and
    therefore we deem it appropriate to partly allow this appeal and quash
    the impugned proceedings qua the second and third appellants.
    Consequently, the judgment and order of the High Court dismissing
    the Section 482 petition qua the second and third appellants is set
    aside. The impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings qua
    the second and third appellants stand quashed. The proceedings
    against the first appellant shall continue and brought to its logical
    conclusion in accordance with law.
15. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan