Advocates Must Not Advise Filing Vexatious "Matrimonial Bouquet" And Frivolous POCSO Cases To Secure Settlements: Supreme Court

The Apex Court cautioned that misuse of criminal law through vague and omnibus allegations contributes to unnecessary harassment, abuse of process and mounting judicial burden on courts.

The Court was hearing an appeal arising from an Allahabad High Court judgment refusing to quash criminal proceedings initiated under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in the backdrop of prolonged matrimonial and family disputes between the parties.

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed: “One particular offshoot or a species of vexatious and frivolous litigation is in family disputes, particularly, a ‘matrimonial bouquet’ that is presented by the estranged wife against the husband and his family out of personal animosity and spite once the relationship turns sour and rancorous and vice versa. This ‘matrimonial bouquet’ often includes claims of dowry demands; cruelty under 498A IPC; harassment by in-laws and domestic violence, made by the complainant against her spouse and in-laws. This set of cases frequently includes bogus and empty allegations and false claims of harassment, cruelty and marital hardships that, more often than not, contain little to no substance at all and are usually not backed by any material or other documentary evidence.

The Bench further took note: “A recent trend in this regard is when the wife resorts to filing false complaints and cases under POCSO Act, alleging that the husband, who is also the father of the minor child, has committed wanton acts which are sexual in nature, especially against the minor daughter. At the centre of this sort of litigation is a child who is often used by her mother against her father, against her will and wishes, so as to make false and vexatious complaints against her father and other male members of her paternal family in order to exact revenge or as an arm-twisting tactic to obtain a higher monetary settlement or to simply harass”.

The Court accordingly advised that “Lawyers/advocates must also advise filing of criminal complaints which are false/concocted so as to keep the opposite parties under a tight leash so that they could come forward for a settlement on the terms dictated by their parties or else, to face a criminal prosecution which can prolong for years.”

Advocate Dr L.S. Chaudhary represented the appellants, while Advocate Dr Vijendra Singh (AOR) appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Background

In the case at hand, the dispute arose from matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband, following which multiple civil and criminal proceedings were instituted by both sides against each other over several years. The proceedings included cases under Section 498A IPC, the Domestic Violence Act, divorce proceedings and other criminal complaints filed by both parties.

Subsequently, a complaint was filed before the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Meerut, invoking provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act against several members of the husband’s family. Cognisance was taken by the Trial Court, and summons were issued against the accused persons.

The appellants approached the Allahabad High Court seeking the quashing of the proceedings. The High Court declined to interfere, observing that the statements recorded during the inquiry disclosed prima facie triable issues. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court extensively examined the allegations contained in the complaint and the surrounding circumstances of the case. The Court observed that while an FIR or complaint need not be an encyclopaedia of facts, criminal proceedings involving grave allegations cannot be permitted to continue merely based on vague, omnibus and generalised assertions unsupported by specific factual particulars or prima facie material.

The Court noted that the parties had already been involved in numerous litigations against each other and cautioned that criminal law is increasingly being used as an instrument of personal vendetta in matrimonial disputes. The Bench observed: “The courts of law are being misused and overburdened by such vague and vexatious litigations between spouses as many a times, the recourse to law and police is taken, in an oblique way so as to antagonise, pressurise, hound and harass the other spouse and their family members in order to retaliate and exact revenge.”

The Supreme Court further observed that while genuine cases of cruelty, domestic violence and sexual offences deserve urgent judicial attention, frivolous prosecutions end up overshadowing legitimate grievances and burdening the criminal justice system. The Court emphasised that courts must carefully separate genuine cases from malicious prosecutions initiated to harass the opposite party or secure favourable settlements.

The Bench noted that false and vexatious complaints often contain sweeping allegations against multiple members of the spouse’s family without detailing the specific role or conduct attributable to each accused. The Court observed that such complaints are frequently aimed at widening the net of criminal prosecution by implicating even elderly or distant family members.

The Court also highlighted what it described as an emerging trend of misuse of the POCSO Act in matrimonial and personal disputes. The Bench observed that false allegations under the POCSO Act are increasingly being used as a weapon to settle scores in matrimonial, financial and commercial disputes.

The Supreme Court further observed: “The threat of a false complaint under the POCSO Act is used as a means to escape legal consequences arising out of a commercial transaction, a matrimonial dispute or such other disputes.”

The Court underscored the responsibility of the legal fraternity in curbing abuse of criminal law and observed that advocates should discourage frivolous criminal prosecutions instead of facilitating them. The Bench reiterated that misuse of criminal process not only causes harassment to innocent persons but also contributes to “docket explosion” and diverts judicial time away from genuine cases requiring urgent adjudication.

Referring to Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Bihar (2025), the Court reiterated that vague and sweeping allegations against family members in matrimonial disputes, unsupported by concrete evidence, cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution.

The Bench also relied upon Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana (2025), wherein this Court had cautioned that criminalising domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible supporting material could have “disastrous consequences” for the institution of family.

The Court further referred to Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2025) and reiterated that members of the Bar carry a social responsibility to ensure that exaggerated matrimonial allegations do not destroy family life or lead to unnecessary criminal litigation.

Relying upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Court held that criminal proceedings instituted with mala fide intent or to wreak vengeance deserve to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings in the facts of the present case would amount to abuse of the process of law and accordingly quashed the complaint proceedings against the appellants.

The Court further observed that while genuine cases involving offences against women and children must be dealt with swiftly and vigorously, frivolous matrimonial prosecutions and false POCSO allegations deserve careful judicial scrutiny to ensure that criminal law is not weaponised as a tool of harassment, coercion or personal vengeance.

The Bench emphasised that courts, investigating agencies, and legal practitioners must exercise caution to prevent abuse of the criminal justice system.

The appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Ishwar Chand Sharma & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 587)

Appearances

Petitioners: Advocates Dr L.S. Chaudhary, Dr Ajay Chaudhary, Bharat Chaudhary, Vinita, Monika Chaudhary, Pratima Vishwakarma, Anjale Patel and Advocate-on-Record Sanjeev Malhotra.

Respondents: Advocate-on-Record Dr Vijendra Singh; Advocates Apurva Singh and Ashwin Lakra; Advocate-on-Record Nitesh Ranjan.

Click here to read/download Judgment