Power Under Article 142 Must Be Invoked To Advance Cause Of Complete Justice In Divorce Cases: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court said that the law must be applied in a manner that balances the need to address genuine grievances with the equally important duty to prevent its misuse.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice K. V. Viswanathan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court emphasized that the power under Article 142 of the Constitution must be invoked to advance the cause of complete justice in divorce cases.
The Court emphasized thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by the father-in-law of a woman who came into contact with his son through a matrimonial website.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “In the considered opinion of this Court, the power under Article 142 must be invoked to advance the cause of complete justice in matters of this nature. Once the marital relationship has ended in divorce and the parties have moved on with their lives, the continuation of criminal proceedings against family members, especially in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose. It only prolongs bitterness and burdens the criminal justice system with disputes that are no longer live.”
The Bench added that the law must be applied in a manner that balances the need to address genuine grievances with the equally important duty to prevent its misuse.
AOR Yusuf represented the Appellant while AAG Amit Sharma represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Respondent-wife came into contact with the Appellant’s son through a matrimonial website and the digital acquaintance soon developed into a personal relationship. Their marriage was solemnised in 2017 in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA). However, by April 2019, differences arose between them and the Respondent left the matrimonial home. She returned to her parental residence and informed her family of the mental and physical cruelty allegedly meted out by her husband and his family members. She then approached the Mahila Police Station and pursuant to her complaint, both parties were called for counselling. The session culminated in an understanding that the marriage would be solemnised again, this time through customary Hindu rites, within two months. However, the said marriage did not last long and disputes resurfaced shortly thereafter.
The Respondent once again left the matrimonial home and then lodged an FIR naming her husband, father-in-law (Appellant), mother-in-law, and sister-in-law as accused under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act). She alleged that soon after counselling sessions, fresh demands were made by the in-laws including Rs. 5 lakhs in cash, gold ornaments, a motor car, clothing, and other customary articles. Being aggrieved by the criminal proceedings, the Appellant along with his family approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which quashed the proceedings against mother-in-law and sister-in-law but refused to quash the same against the Appellant and his son. Challenging this, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, said, “… the continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant (father-in-law of the respondent No.2), which emanate solely from the erstwhile matrimonial relationship, in our view, would serve no useful purpose. In our considered view, further prosecution would only prolong bitterness and prove counterproductive to the ends of justice.”
The Court noted that the Appellant would not come within the scope of the observations by which the plea of the Appellant for quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings against him could be declined.
“The High Court may, within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated”, it reiterated.
The Court was of the view that in appropriate cases, the power to quash such proceedings is essential to uphold fairness and bring about a quietus to personal disputes that have run their course.
“... in order to do complete justice between the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to invoke its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the High Court’s Order, and quashed the proceedings against the Appellant.
Cause Title- ABCv. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 962)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Yusuf, Advocates Amarjeet Singh Girsa, Ritu Solanki, Amit Arora, Jatin Sharma, Deepak Dahiya, Ram Sankar, and Ajith Williyam S.
Respondents: AAG Amit Sharma, AOR Mrinal Gopal Elker, Advocates Saurabh Singh, Aditya Chaudhary, and Chinmoy Chaitanya.
