Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on February 12, 2025, quashed a dowry harassment case against a man and his family members after finding that the FIR was vexatious and seemed to be instituted with an ulterior motive only because the husband preferred a divorce petition.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed a special leave petition filed by one Suman Mishra against the Allahabad High Court's judgment of August 31, 2022, which declined to quash the FIR and the proceedings related to a charge sheet filed against the appellants in a Bareilly court for offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of the IPC.

Having examined the matter, the bench said, "The High Court has undertaken only a cursory analysis of the allegations made in the FIR. The High Court has failed to underscore any reasons for recording its finding that the allegations make out the alleged offence. Further, there appears to be no basis for the High Court to state that the disputed version of the appellants cannot be considered at the stage of quashing."

The marriage between the parties was solemnised on March 05, 2016, as per Hindu rites and customs at Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. However, the parties started living separately and the husband preferred a matrimonial case for grant of decree of divorce on June 17, 2021, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

After the divorce suit was filed, the wife lodged an FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 354, 328, 376, 352, 504, 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against her husband, brother-in-law, mother-in-law and father-in-law.

Following a detailed investigation into the matter, a final report was filed under Section 173 of the CrPC and the charge-sheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 504 of the IPC read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

No charge-sheet was filed in respect of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC against the brother-in-law and it was an undisputed fact that the woman-complainant did not file any protest petition in the matter against dropping off of the charges under Section 376 IPC.

The appellants' counsel contended since the divorce plea was filed on June 17, 2021, the said FIR was lodged only as a counterblast on August 19, 2021, to harass and humiliate the entire family without there being any substance. He also submitted the decree of divorce was also passed, though an ex parte, and the man had even re-married.

The appellants contended the FIR was false and fabricated and the allegations were omnibus against all family members. It is a sheer abuse of process of law on the part of the woman, designed only to humiliate and harass them merely because a divorce petition was filed in the matter, they said.

The court noted after an investigation by two different investigating officers under the supervision of the Senior Superintendent of Police, no charge-sheet was filed for the alleged offence under Section 376 IPC.

"It is noteworthy that no protest petition has been filed by the complainant protesting the non-inclusion of Section 376 IPC in the charge-sheet," the bench said.

Court noted that the statements of the witnesses examined by the police revealed that there were allegations against the accused persons of general and omnibus nature, and no specific details had been provided.

"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 other important aspect of the case is that the proceedings before the Family Court have resulted in a decree of divorce and the re-marriage of the man has also taken place subsequently," the bench said.

The court relied upon Iqbal alias Bala and others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2023); Monica Kumar (Dr) and another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2008); Mala Kar and another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another (2024); Arun Jain and others Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Another (2024).

"Considering the ratio laid down by this court in the 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," the bench said.

Therefore, the bench opined, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the FIR and the charge-sheet in the matter deserved.

Case Title: Suman Mishra & Ors Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr