The Supreme Court of India has quashed criminal proceedings against the sister-in-law and parents-in-law of a complainant, observing that “vague and omnibus” allegations unsupported by concrete evidence cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside a December 2023 order of the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to interfere with the FIR.
The Court highlighted that the criminal machinery was set in motion after a delay of over six years and seven months, a factor it deemed “fatal” to the prosecution’s case in the absence of a proper explanation.
Background of the Case
The appellants—the sister-in-law (a college professor) and the parents-in-law (aged 73 and 71)—challenged the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 758 of 2023 registered at Police Station Mohammadi, District Khiri. The complainant, who married her husband Utkarsh Awasthi in April 2017, alleged that her in-laws frequently demanded ₹8,50,000 and a car.
Specific allegations were made regarding an incident in July 2017, where the complainant claimed she was assaulted by her husband and in-laws, leading to a miscarriage. She further alleged that her father-in-law engaged in “inappropriate conduct” during Diwali 2017. The FIR was finally lodged on November 15, 2023, after the complainant was allegedly assaulted and driven out of her matrimonial home on November 12, 2023.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellants argued that the sister-in-law lived separately in Ghaziabad and had never resided in Kanpur except for ceremonial functions. They contended the allegations of miscarriage were “flimsy and concocted,” noting the absence of medical records. Regarding the parents-in-law, it was argued that as senior citizens living separately in Kanpur, they had no “domestic relationship” with the complainant that would facilitate the alleged harassment.
The State of Uttar Pradesh supported the High Court’s order, arguing that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the veracity of the allegations was a matter for investigation and trial. The complainant did not appear before the Supreme Court despite being served notice.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court noted that while the FIR initially included Section 313 IPC (causing miscarriage without woman’s consent), this charge was dropped in the final chargesheet due to lack of medical evidence. The Court observed:
“A mere statement stating that the accused/appellants herein frequently demanded dowry and harassed the complainant for the same is not sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings against them when the same are not corroborated or bolstered by other materials placed on record.”
On the issue of the nearly seven-year delay in filing the FIR, the Bench emphasized the principle of vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt (law protects those who are vigilant). The Court stated:
“The delay or lack thereof assumes greater importance in the matrimonial cases or criminal cases between the spouses as due to the personal nature of the allegations and relationship shared between the parties, there is already an insufficiency and inadequacy of evidence to support or rebut the claims and counterclaims. A delay of nearly seven years can therefore be fatal to the prosecution’s case especially when the same has not been properly explained.”
Referring to the object of the Code of Criminal Procedure in putting a bar of limitation, the Court observed:
“The object… was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of the process of the court by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions long after the date of the offence.”
Citing its previous judgment in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana (2025), the Court noted:
“A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord.”
Regarding the molestation charge (Section 354 IPC) against the father-in-law, the Bench found no substantive material, noting that “merely making such statements… cannot be allowed to stand in the court of law.”
The Decision
The Court concluded that the allegations were “highly improbable and implausible.” It held that permitting the prosecution to continue would be an abuse of the process of law, especially considering the age of the parents-in-law and the career prospects of the sister-in-law.
Applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Supreme Court quashed FIR No. 758/2023, the subsequent chargesheet, and the criminal case pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohammadi Khiri, specifically against the sister-in-law and the parents-in-law. The Court clarified that this order does not affect other pending matrimonial proceedings between the parties.
Case Details
- Case Title: Charul Shukla vs. State of U.P. & Others
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 555 of 2024 (and connected matter)
- Coram: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
- Date: March 25, 2026
