The Supreme Court of India has quashed the criminal proceedings and domestic violence cases against the family members of a husband, ruling that “criminal law cannot be permitted to be set in motion against every relative of the husband merely on the basis of generalised and omnibus allegations lacking a specific factual foundation.”
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeals filed by the sister-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and brother-in-law’s wife. The Court set aside two orders of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench), which had declined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to quash an FIR for matrimonial cruelty and a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
Background of the Case
The appeals arose out of connected matrimonial disputes between the complainant, Sapna Dhakad, and her husband, Divyaraj Dhakad. The marriage took place on November 19, 2019. According to the complainant, her father had provided ₹31 lakh in cash, gold jewelry worth ₹10 lakh, and other household items as dowry.
On January 13, 2023, the complainant lodged FIR No. 41/2023 at Police Station Guna, Madhya Pradesh, against her husband and the four appellants: Arti Mehta (sister-in-law), Shrivati Bai Dhakad (mother-in-law), Manisha Dhakad (sister-in-law/wife of brother-in-law), and Vikram Dhakad (brother-in-law). The FIR was registered under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Following an investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet.
Separately, on April 4, 2023, the complainant filed a domestic violence complaint (D.V. Complaint No. 1752 of 2023) under Section 12 of the DV Act against the same parties. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna, took cognizance and initiated proceedings on April 6, 2023.
The appellants approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) seeking the quashing of both proceedings. On November 21, 2024, the High Court dismissed both petitions. The High Court observed that there was prima facie material against the appellants, that the allegations were “specific and direct,” and that female relatives could be arrayed as respondents under Section 2(q) of the DV Act. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s refusal, the appellants preferred these appeals before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Appellants:
The appellants contended that they had been falsely implicated simply because of their familial relationship with the husband. They argued that the allegations against them were “wholly omnibus, vague and bereft of any specific overt act.” Furthermore, they pointed out that:
- The FIR was retaliatory, filed right after the husband initiated restitution of conjugal rights proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- The complainant’s own divorce petition admitted that she lived with her husband in his government quarters at Sheopur, while the appellants resided separately at Shivpuri. Thus, no domestic relationship or shared household under Sections 2(f) and 2(s) of the DV Act was established against them.
For the Complainant and Respondent-State:
The counsel for the complainant and the State of Madhya Pradesh supported the High Court’s judgments, arguing that:
- The FIR and DV complaint disclosed cognizable offenses.
- Matrimonial complaints cannot be expected to contain an “exhaustive or encyclopaedic narration of each and every incident.”
- The allegations of dowry demand, physical and mental harassment, and expulsion from the home constituted triable issues of fact that should be evaluated during a trial.
- Whether a shared household existed was a disputed question of fact beyond the scope of a Section 482 CrPC petition.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court carefully analyzed the allegations in the FIR, the complaint under the DV Act, and the pleadings in the divorce petition filed by the complainant before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Guna.
1. Core Allegations Centered on the Husband
The Court observed that the principal allegations of physical abuse, verbal insult, keeping recording devices and hidden cameras in the room, threatening with a licensed pistol, and suspicions of an extramarital relationship were exclusively directed at the husband, Divyaraj Dhakad, at his place of posting in Sheopur.
The Court pointed out:
“None of these allegations are attributed to the present appellants.”
2. Omnibus and Vague Allegations Against the Appellants
In contrast, the Court found that the allegations against the four appellants were “essentially omnibus and generalised in nature.” The FIR merely claimed they “used to harass” her or supported the husband. The Court noted:
“The allegations do not disclose as to which appellant made what demand, on which occasion, in whose presence, or in what manner any specific act constituting cruelty under Section 498A IPC was committed.”
The Court specifically assessed the allegations against individual appellants:
- Vikram Dhakad (Appellant No. 4): The allegation that he remarked “guests keep coming” and questioned her staying in Shivpuri while the husband stayed in Sheopur was held to indicate “a domestic disagreement regarding her stay at the matrimonial house” and did not constitute cruelty or an unlawful dowry demand.
- Arti Mehta (Appellant No. 1): The allegation was limited to the claim that she did not react or intervene when the complainant informed her about the husband’s actions. The Court ruled:
“Mere failure to intervene in a matrimonial dispute between spouses, without any specific allegation of active participation in cruelty or dowry demand, cannot by itself attract criminal liability.”
The Court also noted an inconsistency: the complainant had voluntarily traveled with Appellant No. 1 on the festival of Raksha Bandhan, weakening allegations of persistent harassment. - Shrivati Bai Dhakad (Appellant No. 2) & Manisha Dhakad (Appellant No. 3): The allegations were limited to “insult on small matters and demand money,” with no particulars of dates, places, or specific demands.
The Supreme Court stressed that:
“Mere familial association with the husband, or failure to support the complainant in a marital dispute, cannot by itself constitute a criminal offence in the absence of specific allegations disclosing active participation in acts amounting to cruelty, harassment or unlawful demand of dowry.”
3. Permissibility of Quashing Post Charge-Sheet
Addressing the State’s submission that a charge-sheet had already been filed, the Court referred to Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), reinforcing that the filing of a charge-sheet does not restrict the High Court or the Supreme Court from exercising power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent the abuse of the process of law.
4. Trial Court’s Powers Under Section 319 CrPC
The Supreme Court clarified that the quashing of proceedings does not act as “permanent exoneration.” If, during the ongoing trial of the husband, cogent evidence emerges implicating the appellants, the trial court retains the power to summon them under Section 319 of the CrPC (now Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
The Court placed reliance on MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, where it was established that the quashing of proceedings at an early stage does not bar a court from summoning those individuals later if additional evidence is led.
5. Double Jeopardy Not Applicable
The Court addressed whether a future prosecution under Section 319 CrPC would be barred by the rule against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC.
Citing the Constitution Bench judgments in S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India and T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, the Court ruled that double jeopardy does not apply in this case. The Court held:
- The appellants were never subjected to a full-fledged trial, no charges were framed, and no witnesses were examined.
- Quashing at the threshold is not an acquittal on merits.
- “The protection of Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC will remain inapplicable unless and until the appellants are subjected to a complete trial culminating in a verdict of conviction or acquittal by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
The Decision
The Supreme Court allowed both appeals. It set aside the impugned judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated November 21, 2024.
The Court quashed FIR No. 41/2023 registered at Guna Police Station, the consequential charge-sheet, and the domestic violence proceedings under D.V. Complaint No. 1752 of 2023 qua the appellants: Arti Mehta, Shrivati Bai Dhakad, Manisha Dhakad, and Vikram Dhakad.
The Court concluded by clarifying that:
- The trial against the husband shall proceed unimpeded.
- The trial court may exercise its power under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellants if sufficient evidence emerges during the trial.
Case Details
- Case Title: Arti Mehta & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (With Connected Appeal)
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18345 of 2024) with Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1234 of 2025)
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- Date: May 25, 2026
