FIR Instituted With Ulterior Motive Only Because Husband Preferred Divorce Petition: SC Quashes Criminal Case Against Man & His Family
The Appeal before the Apex Court arose from an order dismissing the quashing application preferred by the Appellants in a case registered under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
In a case of matrimonial discord where the wife lodged an FIR against her husband and his family members just about two months after the divorce petition was registered by the husband, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal case in view of the general and omnibus allegations made by the woman.
The Appeal before the Apex Court arose from an order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the application preferred by the Appellants seeking quashing of the Chargesheet and the cognizance order passed in a case registered under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said, “The statements of the witnesses examined by the police reveal that there are allegations against the accused persons of general and omnibus nature, and no specific details have been provided.”
AOR Ram Lal Roy represented the Appellants while AOR Sakshi Kakkar represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The marriage between Appellant-husband and Respondent-wife was solemnized in the year 2016. However, the parties started living separately and the husband applied for a grant of decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After the divorce suit was filed, the wife lodged a First Information Report against her husband, brother-in-law, mother-in-law and father-in-law.
The Appellants approached the High Court and preferred a petition under Section 482 CrPC but the same was dismissed. The appeal before the Apex Court arose out of the Impugned Order. The Supreme Court had earlier granted interim relief in the matter to the effect that proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed.
Reasoning
The Bench observed that the High Court failed to underscore any reasons for recording its finding that the allegations made out the alleged offence and there appeared to be no basis for the High Court to state that the disputed version of the Appellants couldn’t be considered at the stage of quashing.
It was noticed that the FIR was only registered about two months after the divorce petition was registered by the Appellant husband. One of the primary allegations levelled by the wife was one of rape committed by her brother-in-law. After an investigation by two different investigating officers, no charge sheet was filed for the alleged offence under Section 376 IPC and no protest petition was filed by the Complainant.
The Bench said, “Further, divorcing the allegations under Section 376 IPC from the FIR, it appears to this Court that nothing remains in the FIR that is specifically alleged against the Appellants. In fact, the FIR contains no information in regard to the date or time that the alleged offence took place.”
The Bench took note of the fact that the proceedings before the Family Court resulted in a decree of divorce and the re-marriage of the Appellant husband had also taken place subsequently. Reference was made to the judgments in Iqbal alias Bala and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2023) and Mala Kar and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another (2024), wherein the power under Article 142 of the Constitution has been exercised to quash the proceedings.
The Bench further held,“ Considering the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgments, and especially in the light of the fact that initially the FIR was lodged alleging rape and no charge-sheet was filed for prosecuting the accused for the offence of rape, and keeping in view of the fact that no protest petition was filed thereafter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the FIR is vexatious and seems to be instituted with an ulterior motive only because the husband preferred a divorce petition on 17.06.2021 i.e. much prior to the filing of the FIR against all the family members.”
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench quashed the FIR and the charge sheet.
Cause Title: X v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 203)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Ram Lal Roy
Respondents: AOR Sakshi Kakkar, Advocate Puneet Bindra, AOR Anas Tanwir, Advocates Sonal Kushwah, Suryansh Kishan Razdan, Ebad Ur Rahman, Zainab Shaikh
