While holding that the approach adopted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court amounted to conducting a mini-trial, which is not required at the stage of quashing, the Supreme Court has set aside an order quashing the case of dowry demand and harassment registered against a woman’s husband and her in-laws.

The Appeal before the Apex Court was preferred against the impugned order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashing the proceedings emanating from an FIR registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against private respondents.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra asserted, “In the present case, from the conjoint reading of the complaints and the FIR, it can be seen that prime facie allegations of harassment and demand of dowry are made out, despite that the High Court quashed the FIR against the private respondents primarily on the ground that the earlier two complaints that were filed by the appellant did not mention the specific instances that happened on 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022 and the same were later on mentioned in the FIR only as an afterthought and was a counterblast to the legal notice sent by respondent no.1/husband to the appellant as she was not coming back to her matrimonial home. This approach adopted by the High Court, in our considered opinion, amounts to conducting a mini trial.”

Advocate Pavani Verma represented the Appellant, while Advocate Aditya Vaibhav Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The marriage between the appellant wife and the first respondent husband was solemnised in the year 2020 in accordance with Muslim traditions and customs. From the marriage, a son was born. During the initial days of the marriage, the appellant was treated well by the respondent and his family members. However, after 5-6 months of marriage, the private respondents started harassing the appellant by taunting her that her father had given nothing in dowry, and they also hurled filthy abuses. Further, the first respondent told the appellant to fetch Rs 50 lakh from her father so that he could pass an examination.

Due to the continuous cruelty faced by the appellant at the hands of the private respondents, she returned to her paternal home. She registered an FIR under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the respondent husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. Against the said FIR, the first respondent preferred a petition for quashing of the said FIR. The High Court vide the impugned order allowed the same. Being aggrieved thereby, the Appeal came to be filed before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the important factors which weighed in while allowing the quashing application of the private respondents were that in the earlier complaints filed by the appellant, there was no mention of the events of harassment that happened on two days in 2021 and 2022, and the same were later added in the FIR registered in 2024. On the aspect of the powers of the Courts under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Becnh stated, “...it is settled that at the stage of quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. Thus, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC with respect to quashing is somewhat limited as the Court has to only consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed against the accused or not. If sufficient material is available, the power under Section 482 should not be exercised.”

On a perusal of the complaints and the FIR, the Bench found that prima facie allegations of harassment and demand of dowry were made out, despite that the High Court quashed the FIR against the private respondents. Thus, setting aside the impugned order, the Bench allowed the Appeal. “All contentions and defences available to the respective parties are kept open which shall be considered by the Trial Court on its own merits and in accordance with law”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1287)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Pavani Verma, AOR Mayank Kshirsagar, Advocates Anumita Verma, AOR Mayank Kshirsagar

Respondent: Advocate Aditya Vaibhav Singh , AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advocates Gautam Singh, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, Akanksha Tomar, AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Sanjay KarolJustice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.