Full Judgment Text
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 596
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. ________OF 2025)
(@ D.No.55944 OF 2024)
Renuka .…Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Karnataka and Anr. …. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. Appellant-wife has challenged the impugned order whereby the
High Court quashed proceeding in CC No. 163 of 2021 dated
03.02.2021 under Sections 498-A, 324, 355, 504, 506 read with
1
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the
respondent-husband.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2025.04.29
18:44:14 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’.
1
3. The aforesaid case was registered on the written complaint lodged
by the appellant-wife alleging as follows:-
(i) Marriage between the appellant and respondent was
solemnized in 2012.
(ii) Two children were born to the couple.
(iii) Respondent-husband developed illicit relation with one
Bharati Halamani Tamadaddi and the latter abused the
appellant in filthy language four months prior to the incident.
She reported the matter to Teradal Police Station but no
complaint was lodged.
(iv) Respondent-husband and other in-laws harassed her
physically and mentally and demanded two lakhs dowry.
(v) Due to ill treatment and demand of dowry, the appellant
started residing at her parental home at Telasang.
(vi) On 27.10.2020, Respondent-husband and other in-laws
came in a car to her parental home and threw chilli powder
in her eyes, abused her and her relations in filthy language
and assaulted them with slippers and stones. Neighbours,
including one Suvarna Andri, intervened and rescued them.
2
4. During investigation, Police recovered slippers and stones from the
place of occurrence. Statements of witnesses including the
neighbour Suvarna Andri were recorded and charge sheet was filed
against respondent-husband and in-laws.
2
5. The in-laws assailed the proceeding before the High Court. A
Single Judge partly allowed the petition and quashed the
proceeding against the septuagenarian parents-in-law but
permitted the proceeding to continue against other in-laws.
3
6. Subsequently, respondent-husband prayed for quashing before
another co-ordinate single bench which came to be allowed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
8. The case at hand portrays a disturbing picture. While one judge
refused to quash proceeding against the in-laws, inter alia ,
observing wound certificate demonstrates the appellant was
assaulted and suffered simple injuries, another judge by the
impugned order quashed the proceeding against respondent-
husband holding the medical certificate was not consistent with
2
Criminal Petition No. 101599 of 2021
3
Criminal Petition No. 101591 of 2021
3
the allegations in the complaint i.e. the wound certificate does not
show the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon.
9. Having perused the impugned judgment, we are of the view the
judge erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard to
the credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the
FIR/Chargesheet. The Judge compared the nature of assault
described in the FIR vis-à-vis wound certificate and came to a
finding that the allegations are untrue. In doing so, the Judge had
undertaken a mini trial to quash the proceeding which is
impermissible in law.
4
10. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab this Court enumerated the
category of cases where inherent powers may be invoked to quash
criminal proceeding. One such category is where there is no legal
evidence adduced in support of the allegations made against the
accused or the allegations or such evidence manifestly fails to
prove the charge. Elaborating further with regard to scope of
enquiry to determine this category of cases, the Court held as
follows:-
“6. ………………. In dealing with this class of cases it is important
to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no
4
1960 SCC OnLine SC 21.
4
legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and
clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where
there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not
support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction
under Section 561-A the High Court would not embark upon an
enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not.
That is the function of the trial Magistrate, and ordinarily it would
not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent ju-
risdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the
evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be
sustained………..”
(emphasis supplied)
5
11. This view has been consistently followed and in a catena of cases
this Court has repeatedly forbidden the High Court from
embarking on a ‘mini trial’ in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction
to quash proceeding.
12. Applying the ratio to the facts of the case, we have no hesitation
to hold the allegation of throwing chilli powder and assault on the
appellant by respondent-husband and other in-laws is not only
supported by the wound certificate which discloses simple injury
but also the statement of the neighbour, Suvarna Andri. Given
this situation, it cannot be said the case falls in the category of
those cases where there is no legal evidence or evidence is
5
Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC
315, (Para 10.7); State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty and Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1222, (Para
8.2); State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v. Akhil Sharda and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820, (Para
18); State v. M. Maridoss and Another 2023 SCC OnLine SC 47, (Para 7); Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Aryan Singh and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379, (Para 6); Dharambeer Kumar Singh
v. State of Jharkhand and Another 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1894, (Para 17); Ranjeet Mittal v. State of
Madhya Pradesh 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2926, (Para 19).
5
“manifestly and clearly inconsistent” with the accusation levelled
in the chargesheet.
13. It is nobody’s case no injury was noted in the wound certificate,
rendering the allegation of assault patently absurd or inherently
improbable. In this backdrop, it was unwarranted for the judge to
embark on a mini trial to weigh the ocular version vis-à-vis medical
evidence and quash the proceeding. Whether the ocular evidence
is fully incompatible with medical evidence is a matter of trial and
cannot be a ground to terminate prosecution at the initial stage.
14. In support of quashing the Judge had also observed that it is
unclear from the allegations who had perpetrated the assault and
the prosecution during the pendency of a matrimonial suit was
nothing but an abuse of process of Court. These grounds are
equally untenable.
15. Respondent-husband and other in-laws (except parents-in-law)
have been alleged to have acted in concert and conjointly assaulted
the appellant and her relations. When multiple accused share
common intention/common object to commit a crime, it is
irrelevant to determine the exact role played by each of them in the
6
assault. Learned Judge failed to appreciate the uncontroverted
allegations in the chargesheet attracted constructive liability and
the proceeding could not be quashed on the score it is unclear who
had perpetrated the assault.
16. The Judge also misdirected himself in coming to a finding that
the proceeding was malicious and an abuse of the process of court
as proceedings were pending before the matrimonial court.
Offences involving cruelty on wife would invariably arise out of
matrimonial disputes. Accordingly, pendency of matrimonial
proceeding between the parties cannot per se lead to an inference
that institution of criminal proceeding alleging assault supported
by medical evidence and independent witness is a product of
malice and abuse of court.
17. Finally, it is argued there are case and counter case and
proceeding against parents-in-law have been quashed by the co-
ordinate bench. Noting the parents-in-law are septuagenarian and
there is no whisper in the FIR that they participated in the assault,
proceeding against them was quashed. Uncontroverted allegations
in the FIR/Chargesheet unequivocally implicate respondent-
husband in the assault. He stands on the same footing with the
7
other in-laws i.e. brother-in-law/sisters-in-law against whom the
proceeding was not quashed in Criminal Petition No. 101599 of
2021. Though the order refusing to quash the proceeding against
some of the in-laws was passed earlier, it is inexplicable why there
is no reference to the said order in the impugned order quashing
proceeding against the respondent-husband. It was incumbent on
the Judge while quashing the proceeding against the respondent-
husband to refer to the earlier decision of the co-ordinate bench
and distinguish the reasons therein to arrive at a different
conclusion. Failure to do so infracts judicial propriety and
discipline. Consistency in judicial outcomes is the hallmark of a
responsible judiciary. Inconsistent decisions coming out from
different benches shake public trust and reduce litigation to a
punter’s game. It gives rise to various insidious sharp practices
like forum shopping spoiling the clear stream of justice. Impugned
order suffers from the vice of judicial caprice and arbitrariness and
is liable to be set aside also on this score.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the order dated
16.02.2024 and the proceeding against the respondent-husband
8
(R2) are revived and shall continue in accordance with law.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
….……..…..……...……………………….J.
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)
….……..…..……...……………………….J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
New Delhi,
April 29, 2025
9
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 596
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. ________OF 2025)
(@ D.No.55944 OF 2024)
Renuka .…Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Karnataka and Anr. …. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. Appellant-wife has challenged the impugned order whereby the
High Court quashed proceeding in CC No. 163 of 2021 dated
03.02.2021 under Sections 498-A, 324, 355, 504, 506 read with
1
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the
respondent-husband.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2025.04.29
18:44:14 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’.
1
3. The aforesaid case was registered on the written complaint lodged
by the appellant-wife alleging as follows:-
(i) Marriage between the appellant and respondent was
solemnized in 2012.
(ii) Two children were born to the couple.
(iii) Respondent-husband developed illicit relation with one
Bharati Halamani Tamadaddi and the latter abused the
appellant in filthy language four months prior to the incident.
She reported the matter to Teradal Police Station but no
complaint was lodged.
(iv) Respondent-husband and other in-laws harassed her
physically and mentally and demanded two lakhs dowry.
(v) Due to ill treatment and demand of dowry, the appellant
started residing at her parental home at Telasang.
(vi) On 27.10.2020, Respondent-husband and other in-laws
came in a car to her parental home and threw chilli powder
in her eyes, abused her and her relations in filthy language
and assaulted them with slippers and stones. Neighbours,
including one Suvarna Andri, intervened and rescued them.
2
4. During investigation, Police recovered slippers and stones from the
place of occurrence. Statements of witnesses including the
neighbour Suvarna Andri were recorded and charge sheet was filed
against respondent-husband and in-laws.
2
5. The in-laws assailed the proceeding before the High Court. A
Single Judge partly allowed the petition and quashed the
proceeding against the septuagenarian parents-in-law but
permitted the proceeding to continue against other in-laws.
3
6. Subsequently, respondent-husband prayed for quashing before
another co-ordinate single bench which came to be allowed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
8. The case at hand portrays a disturbing picture. While one judge
refused to quash proceeding against the in-laws, inter alia ,
observing wound certificate demonstrates the appellant was
assaulted and suffered simple injuries, another judge by the
impugned order quashed the proceeding against respondent-
husband holding the medical certificate was not consistent with
2
Criminal Petition No. 101599 of 2021
3
Criminal Petition No. 101591 of 2021
3
the allegations in the complaint i.e. the wound certificate does not
show the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon.
9. Having perused the impugned judgment, we are of the view the
judge erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard to
the credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the
FIR/Chargesheet. The Judge compared the nature of assault
described in the FIR vis-à-vis wound certificate and came to a
finding that the allegations are untrue. In doing so, the Judge had
undertaken a mini trial to quash the proceeding which is
impermissible in law.
4
10. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab this Court enumerated the
category of cases where inherent powers may be invoked to quash
criminal proceeding. One such category is where there is no legal
evidence adduced in support of the allegations made against the
accused or the allegations or such evidence manifestly fails to
prove the charge. Elaborating further with regard to scope of
enquiry to determine this category of cases, the Court held as
follows:-
“6. ………………. In dealing with this class of cases it is important
to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no
4
1960 SCC OnLine SC 21.
4
legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and
clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where
there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not
support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction
under Section 561-A the High Court would not embark upon an
enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not.
That is the function of the trial Magistrate, and ordinarily it would
not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent ju-
risdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the
evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be
sustained………..”
(emphasis supplied)
5
11. This view has been consistently followed and in a catena of cases
this Court has repeatedly forbidden the High Court from
embarking on a ‘mini trial’ in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction
to quash proceeding.
12. Applying the ratio to the facts of the case, we have no hesitation
to hold the allegation of throwing chilli powder and assault on the
appellant by respondent-husband and other in-laws is not only
supported by the wound certificate which discloses simple injury
but also the statement of the neighbour, Suvarna Andri. Given
this situation, it cannot be said the case falls in the category of
those cases where there is no legal evidence or evidence is
5
Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC
315, (Para 10.7); State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty and Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1222, (Para
8.2); State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v. Akhil Sharda and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820, (Para
18); State v. M. Maridoss and Another 2023 SCC OnLine SC 47, (Para 7); Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Aryan Singh and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379, (Para 6); Dharambeer Kumar Singh
v. State of Jharkhand and Another 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1894, (Para 17); Ranjeet Mittal v. State of
Madhya Pradesh 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2926, (Para 19).
5
“manifestly and clearly inconsistent” with the accusation levelled
in the chargesheet.
13. It is nobody’s case no injury was noted in the wound certificate,
rendering the allegation of assault patently absurd or inherently
improbable. In this backdrop, it was unwarranted for the judge to
embark on a mini trial to weigh the ocular version vis-à-vis medical
evidence and quash the proceeding. Whether the ocular evidence
is fully incompatible with medical evidence is a matter of trial and
cannot be a ground to terminate prosecution at the initial stage.
14. In support of quashing the Judge had also observed that it is
unclear from the allegations who had perpetrated the assault and
the prosecution during the pendency of a matrimonial suit was
nothing but an abuse of process of Court. These grounds are
equally untenable.
15. Respondent-husband and other in-laws (except parents-in-law)
have been alleged to have acted in concert and conjointly assaulted
the appellant and her relations. When multiple accused share
common intention/common object to commit a crime, it is
irrelevant to determine the exact role played by each of them in the
6
assault. Learned Judge failed to appreciate the uncontroverted
allegations in the chargesheet attracted constructive liability and
the proceeding could not be quashed on the score it is unclear who
had perpetrated the assault.
16. The Judge also misdirected himself in coming to a finding that
the proceeding was malicious and an abuse of the process of court
as proceedings were pending before the matrimonial court.
Offences involving cruelty on wife would invariably arise out of
matrimonial disputes. Accordingly, pendency of matrimonial
proceeding between the parties cannot per se lead to an inference
that institution of criminal proceeding alleging assault supported
by medical evidence and independent witness is a product of
malice and abuse of court.
17. Finally, it is argued there are case and counter case and
proceeding against parents-in-law have been quashed by the co-
ordinate bench. Noting the parents-in-law are septuagenarian and
there is no whisper in the FIR that they participated in the assault,
proceeding against them was quashed. Uncontroverted allegations
in the FIR/Chargesheet unequivocally implicate respondent-
husband in the assault. He stands on the same footing with the
7
other in-laws i.e. brother-in-law/sisters-in-law against whom the
proceeding was not quashed in Criminal Petition No. 101599 of
2021. Though the order refusing to quash the proceeding against
some of the in-laws was passed earlier, it is inexplicable why there
is no reference to the said order in the impugned order quashing
proceeding against the respondent-husband. It was incumbent on
the Judge while quashing the proceeding against the respondent-
husband to refer to the earlier decision of the co-ordinate bench
and distinguish the reasons therein to arrive at a different
conclusion. Failure to do so infracts judicial propriety and
discipline. Consistency in judicial outcomes is the hallmark of a
responsible judiciary. Inconsistent decisions coming out from
different benches shake public trust and reduce litigation to a
punter’s game. It gives rise to various insidious sharp practices
like forum shopping spoiling the clear stream of justice. Impugned
order suffers from the vice of judicial caprice and arbitrariness and
is liable to be set aside also on this score.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the order dated
16.02.2024 and the proceeding against the respondent-husband
8
(R2) are revived and shall continue in accordance with law.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
….……..…..……...……………………….J.
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)
….……..…..……...……………………….J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
New Delhi,
April 29, 2025
9