In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India quashed criminal proceedings in a dowry harassment case, stating that the FIR was “vexatious and instituted with an ulterior motive.” The ruling was delivered on February 12, 2025, in Suman Mishra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9218 of 2024).
A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma found that the allegations were general, lacked specificity, and appeared to be a retaliatory move following a divorce petition. The Court emphasized that criminal law must not be weaponized in matrimonial disputes and quashed the FIR and charge sheet filed under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a marital conflict between Priyanka Mishra (Complainant) and her husband, Rishal Kumar (Appellant No. 3). They were married on March 5, 2016, in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. Due to persistent disputes, Rishal Kumar filed for divorce on June 17, 2021 (Matrimonial Case No. 627(597) of 2021) before the Principal Judge, Family Court No. 3, Bareilly.
On August 19, 2021, two months after the divorce petition, Priyanka Mishra lodged an FIR at Police Station Baradari, Bareilly, alleging offenses including rape by her brother-in-law, dowry harassment, and domestic abuse. The FIR was registered under:
– Sections 498A, 354, 328, 376, 352, 504, and 506 of the IPC
– Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Following an investigation, the police dropped the rape charge (Section 376 IPC) and filed a charge sheet for dowry harassment and criminal intimidation. Priyanka Mishra did not file a protest petition against this.
The accused moved the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the FIR and charge sheet, but their plea was dismissed on August 31, 2022. The accused then approached the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court
The case raised several important legal questions regarding the misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes.
1. Whether the FIR was a counterblast to the divorce petition?
The accused contended that the FIR was filed two months after the divorce petition and was meant to harass the husband’s family. The Supreme Court noted that such retaliatory FIRs need careful judicial scrutiny to prevent abuse of process.
2. Whether omnibus allegations against in-laws should sustain prosecution?
The Supreme Court observed that the allegations against multiple family members were vague and lacked specific details, which has been a recurring concern in dowry harassment cases.
“The statements of the witnesses reveal allegations of a general and omnibus nature, without specific details regarding date or time of the alleged offenses.”
3. Can criminal proceedings continue after a divorce and re-marriage?
The Court took into account that the husband had already obtained a divorce and had re-married, questioning the relevance of continuing criminal proceedings.
“The Family Court granted a decree of divorce, which was not challenged. Appellant No. 3 has re-married. In such circumstances, continuing criminal proceedings would serve no purpose but harassment.”
4. Should criminal proceedings continue when serious charges (rape) are dropped during investigation?
Since no charge sheet was filed for rape, and the complainant did not challenge its removal, the Court found the remaining charges weak and questionable.
“Upon a perusal of the FIR, it is revealed that the primary allegation was one of rape by the brother-in-law. However, no charge-sheet was filed for the said offense, and no protest petition was filed thereafter.”
5. Did the High Court err in dismissing the quashing petition without proper scrutiny?
The Supreme Court criticized the Allahabad High Court for summarily dismissing the quashing petition without analyzing whether the FIR genuinely disclosed a cognizable offense.
“The High Court has undertaken only a cursory analysis of the allegations made in the FIR. It has failed to underscore any reasons for recording its finding that the allegations make out the alleged offense.”
Supreme Court’s Verdict
After weighing the facts and legal principles, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and charge sheet, calling them vexatious and an abuse of process.
“The FIR appears to be vexatious and instituted with an ulterior motive only because the husband preferred a divorce petition prior to its filing. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the FIR and charge sheet deserve to be quashed.”
The Court relied on several precedents, including:
Iqbal alias Bala v. State of U.P. (2023) 8 SCC 734 – Courts must quash FIRs if they appear to be filed with malafide intent.
Monica Kumar v. State of U.P. (2008) 8 SCC 781 – Courts should prevent misuse of criminal law for personal vengeance.
Mala Kar v. State of Uttarakhand (2024 SCC Online SC 1049) – Quashing of FIR when divorce and re-marriage had already taken place.
By invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court ensured complete justice by dismissing the proceedings against the accused.
