The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has quashed criminal proceedings for cruelty and dowry harassment against a father-in-law, observing that once a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce, the continuation of criminal cases arising from the matrimonial dispute would serve no useful purpose and only “perpetuate hostility.” A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do “complete justice,” setting aside a High Court order that had refused to quash the FIR.
The Court held that allowing the prosecution to continue against the father-in-law, especially when the allegations were belated and made after divorce proceedings were initiated by the husband, would be an abuse of the process of law.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a matrimonial dispute between the appellant’s son and the complainant (respondent No. 2). The couple met through a matrimonial website in April 2017 and married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, on December 23, 2017.
By April 2019, differences arose, and on May 15, 2019, the wife left the matrimonial home and returned to her parental residence in Jabalpur. She lodged a complaint at the Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur, leading to counselling sessions for both parties. A session on June 2, 2019, attended by both families, resulted in an understanding to solemnise the marriage again through customary Hindu rites.
However, the accord was short-lived. On July 21, 2019, the wife lodged FIR No. 58 of 2019 against her husband, father-in-law (the appellant, Mange Ram), mother-in-law, and sister-in-law under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The FIR alleged that fresh demands for dowry, including Rs. 5 lakhs in cash, gold, and a car, were made after the counselling. It was specifically alleged that the appellant had called the complainant to Jabalpur Railway Station, slapped her, threatened to ruin her life, and reiterated the dowry demand, which was later enhanced to Rs. 10 lakhs. A charge sheet was subsequently filed on August 18, 2019.
The appellant and his family members approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to quash the FIR. By its order dated May 7, 2024, the High Court quashed the proceedings against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law, citing that the allegations against them were “general in nature.” However, it refused to quash the proceedings against the husband and the father-in-law, noting the specific allegations of dowry demand and assault against them. This refusal led the father-in-law to appeal to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the couple was granted a decree of divorce by the Family Court in Bhubaneswar on August 24, 2021.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The appellant’s counsel argued that the FIR was a “counterblast” to the divorce petition filed by his son on June 20, 2019. It was contended that the allegation of being slapped on June 2, 2019, was an afterthought, as no such grievance was raised during the police counselling session held on the same day. The delay in filing the FIR, it was submitted, rendered the allegations baseless and motivated.
Conversely, the counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh argued that the FIR contained specific and detailed allegations against the appellant, including demands for dowry and physical assault. It was pointed out that statements of five witnesses supported the complainant’s case and that the High Court had rightly declined to quash the proceedings against the appellant.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court bench, after examining the record, expressed doubt about the veracity of the complaint. The judgment authored by Justice Nagarathna noted, “It appears to this Court that the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 is highly belated and is not free from doubt.”
The Court found the complainant’s conduct “wholly irreconcilable” with the allegations. It observed that the counselling session on June 2, 2019, culminated in a mutual understanding to remarry, which contradicted the allegation that the appellant had slapped her on the very same day. The Court highlighted the timing of the FIR, stating, “The complaint has been made subsequent to the steps taken for filing a divorce petition by respondent No.2’s husband.”
The bench decisively ruled on the futility of continuing such proceedings post-divorce. “Once the marital relationship between the principal parties stands legally dissolved, the continuation of criminal proceedings arising out of the discord of that relationship serves little purpose,” the Court stated. “On the contrary, it would only perpetuate hostility between the parties who appear to have otherwise moved on with their lives.”
The judgment also addressed the broader trend of implicating entire families in matrimonial disputes, referencing its earlier decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana. The Court observed, “it has become a recurring tendency to implicate every member of the husband’s family, irrespective of their role or actual involvement, merely because a dispute has arisen between the spouses.”
Citing its judgments in Mala Kar and Arun Jain, the Court reiterated the principle that where a marriage has ended and parties have moved on, criminal prosecution should not be allowed to “linger as a means of harassment.”
Decision
Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do “complete justice,” the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The Court concluded that further prosecution would be counterproductive and an abuse of the legal process.
“Once the marital relationship has ended in divorce and the parties have moved on with their lives, the continuation of criminal proceedings against family members, especially in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose. It only prolongs bitterness and burdens the criminal justice system with disputes that are no longer live,“ the bench concluded.
The Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed FIR No. 58 of 2019, along with the consequent charge sheet, as far as they pertained to the appellant, Mange Ram.
