Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 412
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.9195 OF 2025)
SIVARAMAN NAIR
AND OTHERS
… APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA
AND ANOTHER
… RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal assails the judgment and
order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl.MC.
No.5826 of 2023 whereby the High Court
declined to quash the proceedings arising out of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NAVEEN D
Date: 2026.04.24
16:09:35 IST
Reason:
FIR No.1318 of 2016 registered at Museum
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 1 of 16
Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
under sections 494 and 498A read with section
34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘IPC’) lodged at the instance of
Respondent no.2 herein against her husband,
her father-in-law (Accused-appellant no.1
herein), mother-in-law (Accused-appellant no.2
herein) and sister-in-law (Accused-appellant
no.3 herein).
3. The facts in brief are that Respondent no.2
th
married Syam Sivaraman Nair on 19
December 2007.
th
4. On 24 August 2016, she filed a complaint
before the police station alleging that she was
subjected to dowry harassment from the
inception of her marriage. She stated that her
husband took her to Abu Dhabi after her
marriage while the accused-appellants resided
in Kawdiar, Kerala. While she was residing with
her husband, she was often physically
assaulted and mentally tortured by him. It was
alleged that he would take drugs and torture her
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 2 of 16
with demand of Rs.30 lakhs and 47 sovereigns
of gold.
5. She further stated that on her becoming
pregnant, she came to live in her native village
in October 2008. While she was living there, her
husband would frequently call her and harass
her regarding dowry. He took her back with him
in September 2009 under the impression of
arranging for a job for her but she was again
mentally and physically harassed there.
6. Thereafter, in April 2010 she was taken to the
house in Saudi Arabia where the accused-
appellants were residing. There she overheard
them discussing the sale of 153 gold sovereigns
and was subjected to assault and threatened by
her husband regarding the matter.
7. It was alleged that in June 2010 she was taken
back to India and upon her objections to
discussions regarding sale of the gold
sovereigns, she was threatened of being
abandoned with her child. The 153 gold
sovereigns were sold and a Volkswagen car was
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 3 of 16
purchased in the name of her husband from the
amount received. The balance amount was
given to her sister-in-law for purchasing a flat.
8. She again went abroad in October 2010 with her
husband where she was frequently assaulted for
dowry by him. It was alleged that pursuant to
this her elder brother gave the parents of her
th
husband Rs. 5 lakhs on 26 May 2011, Rs.15
st
lakhs on 31 August 2011 and Rs. 9 lakhs on
nd
22 June 2011. Thereafter, she was left in her
native village while her husband went abroad.
9. In February 2015, her husband took her back
to reside in Mavelikkara, Kerala. While residing
there, a lawyer’s notice was received in the name
of her husband which was sent by one Simran
G. who claimed to be his wife. Photos of them
standing together were also received. When she
enquired regarding this, she was told that they
were sent by somebody to fool her. Later on, her
brother discovered that her husband had gotten
st
married to one Simran in Andhra on 21 May
2013 by suppressing that he was already
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 4 of 16
married.
10. After a few months, in September 2015, her
husband again started demanding money and
assaulting her, after which her elder brother
paid them Rs.2 lakhs in instalments. She also
alleged that she was assaulted by her husband
in the presence of the accused-appellants when
she inquired regarding the second marriage.
11. Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered
against the husband and the accused-
appellants. Upon investigation, a chargesheet
th
came to be filed on 11 September 2018 before
the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Charges
were framed and the accused persons pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial. In July 2023, the
accused-appellants approached the High Court
of Kerala by filing a petition under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’) bearing Crl.
M.C. No.5826 of 2023 seeking quashing of
proceedings against them.
12. By the impugned judgment and order dated
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 5 of 16
25.11.2024, the High Court noted that the
prosecution records did not justify the
contentions of the accused-appellants that the
allegations of cruelty were not made out against
them and that the second marriage was not
known to them. On this basis, the High Court
refused to quash the proceedings, underscoring
the need for trial against the accused-
appellants.
13. Aggrieved, the accused-appellants have now
approached this Court by way of the present
appeal.
14. The Learned Counsel for the accused-appellants
submits that the accused-appellants are aged
individuals who were not residing with the
complainant during the relevant time and had
no role in her marital life. There are no specific
allegations of cruelty against them. Rather, the
complaint consists of vague allegations that are
not supported by any independent material. The
mere presence of the accused-appellants as the
relatives of the husband does not establish
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 6 of 16
common intention. Reliance is placed on
Geddam Jhansi and Another v. State of
1
Telangana and Others to contend that criminal
proceedings in matrimonial disputes must be
based on specific allegations supported by
material evidence and allowing the present
criminal proceedings to continue would amount
to an abuse of process of law.
15. Furthermore, it is submitted that there is a
significant delay in lodging the FIR as the
allegations pertain to incidents that are alleged
to have taken place between 2007 and 2010,
th
whereas the FIR was registered only on 24
August 2016. This unexplained delay in filing
the complaint raises serious doubts regarding
the credibility of the allegations and suggests an
afterthought to harass the accused-appellants.
16. With regard to the allegations under Section 494
of the IPC, reliance is placed on S. Nitheen and
2
Others v. State of Kerala and Another , to
contend that liability under the section cannot
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 263
2
(2024) 8 SCC 706
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 7 of 16
extend to any person other than the spouse
alleged to have contracted the second marriage.
There are no allegations or evidence of the
participation or facilitation of the accused-
appellants in the marriage and they are sought
to be implicated solely on the basis of their
familial relationship with the accused-husband.
17. It is submitted that the accused-appellants
cannot be penalised for non-disclosure of
bigamy and failure to interfere between
husband and wife when he allegedly inflicted
violence on the complainant.
18. The Learned Counsel for the Complainant, on
the other hand, submits that the accused-
appellants were not strangers to her marital life
and resided with them at the matrimonial home
at Mavelikkara, Kerala. Their conduct directly
contributed to the physical and mental cruelty
inflicted upon her. Their involvement was active
and continuous as they always encouraged the
cruelty inflicted by the accused-husband upon
her.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 8 of 16
19. It is submitted that they received the
instalments of the amounts paid by her brother.
They also colluded with her husband and sold
the gold which was gifted to her by her parents
at the time of her marriage without her consent.
It is also submitted that it is apparent from the
photographs that the accused-appellants were
fully aware of the second marriage. They
manipulated her and convinced her to reside
with the accused-husband. These actions are
sufficient to attract the offences under Sections
494, 498A read with 34 of the IPC.
20. It is also submitted that the alleged delay in
lodging the complaint does not vitiate the
prosecution as the FIR and Final Report disclose
a continuous pattern of physical and mental
cruelty which continued until her separation.
Prayer, on the basis of these submissions, is
made for dismissal of the appeal.
21. It is a settled position of law as laid down by this
Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 9 of 16
3
Lal and Others that the inherent powers of the
Court under section 482 CrPC are to be
exercised ‘to prevent the abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice.’ Paragraph 102 is extracted herein
below:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of
the various relevant provisions of the Code
under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we have given the following categories
of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
3
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 10 of 16
cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of
a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 11 of 16
the accused and with a view to spite him due
to private and personal grudge.”
22. We have heard Learned counsel for the parties
and have carefully perused the material on
record. In light of the abovementioned position
of law, two questions fall for consideration: first,
whether the allegations contained in the FIR
and the chargesheet prima facie disclose the
commission of offences under Sections 498A
and 494 read with Section 34 of the IPC against
the accused-appellants specifically, as distinct
from the accused-husband; and second,
whether, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the continuation of criminal
proceedings against the accused-appellants
would amount to an abuse of the process of law
within the meaning of Section 482 of the CrPC.
23. At the outset, it is to be noted that the gravamen
of the complaint lies against the accused-
husband. Specific allegations regarding
physical assault, demand of dowry and mental
torture have been made against him pertaining
to specific dates and incidents. The allegations
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 12 of 16
against the accused-appellants however are less
of that of active involvement and are mostly that
of them being present or encouraging the
harassment meted out by the accused-
husband. This Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana
4
and Others v. State of Telangana and Another
has laid a word of caution in a similar case
involving quashing of proceedings against
members of the husband’s family, by noting
that:
“ 27. 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. Such generalised and
sweeping accusations unsupported by
concrete evidence or particularised allegations
cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.
Courts must exercise caution in such cases to
prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal
process and avoid unnecessary harassment of
innocent family members. …”
24. In the present case, accused-appellant no. 1,
the father-in-law, and accused-appellant no. 2,
4
(2025) 3 SCC 735
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 13 of 16
the mother-in-law, are alleged to have been
present during certain incidents of harassment
and to have received amounts paid by the
complainant's brother. However, the FIR does
not attribute to them any specific act of demand,
threat, or physical assault on any identifiable
occasion.
25. Accused-appellant no. 3, the sister-in-law, is
alleged to have received money for the purchase
of a flat from the proceeds of the sale of gold, but
no specific act of cruelty or coercion on her part
has been alleged. No other allegations have been
made against her except for the receipt of such
money. In all three instances, the allegations
consist of general statements of presence and
encouragement rather than specific acts that
individually constitute the offence of cruelty
under Section 498A of the IPC.
26. Coming to the allegations under Section 494 of
the IPC, it has been held in S. Nitheen (supra)
that in order to bring home the said charge, the
complainant is required to prima facie prove the
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 14 of 16
overt act or omission of the accused persons in
the second marriage ceremony. The prosecution
has failed to provide any cogent evidence to
establish such overt act or intention on part of
the accused-appellants.
27. The High Court relied upon the statement of a
witness to infer knowledge on the part of the
accused-appellants. However, such inferential
knowledge, without more, is insufficient to
satisfy the threshold established in S. Nitheen
(supra), which requires evidence of an overt act
or omission. While it has been alleged that the
accused-appellants were aware of the second
marriage, mere knowledge that an act is being
or has been committed by another person does
not, by itself, establish the requisite common
intention. Even proceeding on the basis that the
accused-appellants were aware of the second
marriage, there is no allegation, let alone any
material, to suggest that they actively
participated in, facilitated, or encouraged the
solemnisation of that marriage.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 15 of 16
28. In view of the aforementioned reasons, the
impugned order dated 25.11.2024 is set aside
and the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 1318
of 2016 registered at Museum Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram stand quashed qua the
accused-appellants herein.
29. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
30. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
.……..………..……………………..J.
[ SANJAY KAROL ]
.……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 24, 2026.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 16 of 16