The Supreme Court of India, in a notable decision, quashed criminal proceedings in a nearly two-decade-old domestic violence case, stating, “There is no purpose in flogging a dead horse.” The case, involving allegations of cruelty and abuse under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was laid to rest due to the death of the complainant and lack of prosecution.
Case Background
The appeals, numbered Criminal Appeal No. 5423/2024 and Criminal Appeal No. 5424/2024, were filed by Poonam Mishra and others against the State of Uttar Pradesh and another respondent. The original case, registered as FIR No. 125/2004, accused the appellants of offenses under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation), as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Domestic Violence Act.
The case had a protracted history, originating from a complaint filed on July 10, 2004. The appellants’ attempts to quash the FIR and discharge themselves from the case were previously rejected by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in November 2022.
Legal Issues Examined
1. Survivability of Proceedings After Complainant’s Death: The court considered whether criminal proceedings could continue when the complainant (Ms. Pinki Tiwari) was deceased and her legal representative had not pursued the case.
2. Purpose of Prosecution in Old Cases: With the FIR dating back two decades and little likelihood of proving the charges, the court deliberated on the utility of continuing the case.
3. Proportionality of Legal Remedies: The appellants argued that continued litigation caused undue harassment given the improbability of a conviction.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgment, observing that the complainant’s death and the lack of prosecution rendered the charges unprovable. The court stated:
“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as no one is there to prosecute the proceedings, the charges are not likely to be proved against the appellants. There is no purpose in flogging a dead horse but to close the proceedings.”
Consequently, the court quashed the High Court’s order dated November 16, 2022, and the subsequent criminal proceedings, including Case No. 1600/2006 arising from the FIR.
Counsel Representations
The appellants were represented by senior advocate M. Shoeb Alam, assisted by advocates Fauzia Shakil, Rashid Murtaza, Tasmiya Taleha, and Dev Sareen. The respondents were represented by advocate-on-record Shaurya Sahay and advocate Ruchil Raj.
