Full Judgment Text
1
2025 INSC 562
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). __________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 2570 of 2018)
MUPPIDI LAKSHMI NARAYANA
REDDY & ORS. ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Leave granted.
2. In the present appeal the appellants have challenged the
order passed by the High Court whereby their petition under
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C. No. 359 of
Date: 2025.04.23
18:05:10 IST
Reason:
2
2016 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class for
Prohibition & Excise Cases, Guntur was dismissed.
3 . The appellant No.1 (A4) is the sister-in-law of the de-facto
complainant, appellant No. 2 (A5) is the husband of A4 and
appellant No. 3 (A6) is the father-in-law of appellant No. 1
(A4).
4 . The marriage between de-facto complainant (respondent
no. 2) with Challa Poornananda Reddy (A1) was solemnised on
24.05.2014 at Guntur. After five months of the marriage, the
de-facto complainant left the company of her husband and
joined her parents to live at her parental house at Vidyanagar,
Guntur. On persuasion, she joined her husband but again went
back to her parental house and this act continued for some
more time compelling the husband to send a legal notice
followed by a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on
18.02.2015. During the pendency of this proceeding, she
lodged a complaint before the concerned police on 13.02.2016.
However, on intervention of elders a compromise was arrived at
on 02.04.2015 and the husband (A1) withdrew the case of
restitution of conjugal rights and the de-facto complainant also
withdrew her complaint before the concerned police.
3
5 . She later left for USA without intimating the husband or
his family members and the dispute continued. The husband
moved a petition for dissolution of marriage on 21.06.2016 and
as a counterblast she again lodged a police complaint bearing
FIR No. 79 of 2016 against six accused persons including the
present appellants.
6 . It is the case of the appellants that they are nowhere
connected with the dispute between the husband and the wife
or the husband’s family members. The appellants are residing
at Hyderabad. On the complaint of the father of the respondent
no. 2 (de–facto complainant) an offence under Section 66C of
the Information Technology Act was registered against the
husband (A1) which is pending as CC No. 775 of 2016 before
the learned Special Judicial First-Class Magistrate for
Prohibition and Excise, Gunturu, Andhra Pradesh. It is further
case of the appellants that accused no. 4 is a housewife,
accused no. 5 is a Software Engineer in a Private Software
Company and accused no. 6 is a Central Government employee
and all are stationed at Hyderabad having no connection or
intervention with the dispute between the de-facto complainant
and her husband.
4
7 . The High Court refused to allow the quashing petition on
the ground that there are allegations against the appellants for
which a trial is required and the same cannot be disbelieved at
this stage.
8 . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of record it appears that there are omnibus and general
allegations against the appellants. As per complaint, although,
they reside at Hyderabad, they used to visit Guntur and during
such visit they used to instigate accused no. 1/husband and his
parents and would also join in demanding dowry. The initial
allegation is of demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- made against
accused No. 4/appellant no. 1 with further statement that they
used to taunt that if accused no. 1 would have married
somewhere else, he would have got Rs. 10 crores dowry. There
is no allegation of any physical torture being perpetrated by the
present appellants. The allegation is only of taunt and
statement that they are highly placed having political influence
and connection with Ministers as such they instigated accused
no. 1 to accused no. 3 to pressurise the de-facto complainant
to get additional dowry.
5
9 . There is no denial of the fact that the appellants reside at
Hyderabad whereas the de-facto complainant stayed at Guntur
in her marital house. There is no specific date as to when the
present appellants visited Guntur and joined accused nos. 1 to
3 in demanding dowry from de-facto complainant. Considering
the growing trend of the dowry victim arraigning the relatives
of the husband, this Court in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra &
1
Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. has deprecated the
practice involving the relatives of the husband for the offence
under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961. The following has been held in para 18:
“ 18 . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh
case [(2005) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 735] had
been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made
against the sister-in-law by the complainant appeared
to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as
many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held
that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the
legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the
offences alleged against the appellants. The learned
Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the
allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge-
sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498-
A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
were made against the married sister of the
complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living
with the family of the complainant's husband. Their
Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold
that the High Court ought not to have relegated the
sister-in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the
1
(2012) 10 SCC 741
6
proceedings against the appellants were quashed and
the appeal was allowed.”
10. In a recent judgment in the matter of Dara Lakshmi
2
Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr. , this Court
has again reiterated and deprecated the practice of involving
the relatives of the husband in dowry related matters. The
following has been held in paras 24, 25, 28, 30, 31 & 32:
“ 24. Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we
find that they have no connection to the matter at hand
and have been dragged into the web of crime without
any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would
indicate that no substantial and specific allegations
have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other
than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1
for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact
that they never resided with the couple namely
appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children.
Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal,
Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos.4 to 6 live in Nellore,
Bengaluru and Guntur respectively.
25. 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. In the present
case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the
family of appellant No.1 have been living in different
cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of
2
(2024) INSC 953: (2024) 12 SCR 559
7
appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence,
they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and
the same would be an abuse of the process of the law
in the absence of specific allegations made against each
of them.
28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of
an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on
a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift
intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as
there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes
across the country, accompanied by growing discord
and tension within the institution of marriage,
consequently, there has been a growing tendency to
misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool
for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband
and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised
allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not
scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes
and an encouragement for use of arm-twisting tactics
by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is
taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the
husband and his family in order to seek compliance
with the unreasonable demands of a wife.
Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned
against prosecuting the husband and his family in the
absence of a clear prima facie case against them.
30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs.
L.H.V. Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows:
“12. There has been an outburst of
matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage
is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of
which is to enable the young couple to settle
down in life and live peacefully. But little
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which
often assume serious proportions resulting in
commission of heinous crimes in which elders
of the family are also involved with the result
that those who could have counselled and
brought about rapprochement are rendered
helpless on their being arrayed as accused in
the criminal case. There are many other
reasons which need not be mentioned here for
not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that
the parties may ponder over their defaults and
terminate their disputes amicably by mutual
8
agreement instead of fighting it out in a court
of law where it takes years and years to
conclude and in that process the parties lose
their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in
different courts.”
31 . Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of
Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have
to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with
these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment by the husband’s close
relatives who had been living in different cities and
never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely different
complexion. The allegations of the complainant are
required to be scrutinized with great care and
circumspection.
32 . We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned
FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was
initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores
and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family
members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the
present case at hand falls within category (7) of
illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal.
Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in
not exercising the powers available to it under Section
482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the
Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution
against the appellants.”
11. In the present case also, it is an admitted position that
the appellants are residing at Hyderabad whereas the de-facto
complainant stayed in her marital house at Guntur at the
relevant point of time. She is presently staying in USA. There
is omnibus allegation against the appellants that they too used
9
to demand dowry or instigate accused nos. 1 to 3 who are not
before us, in demanding dowry.
12 . Considering the entire facts of the case, we are of the
view, having relied on this Court’s previous decisions in Geeta
Mehrotra (supra) & Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra), the
present criminal case against the appellants deserves to be
quashed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and Criminal Case
No. 359 of 2016 against the appellants is quashed.
………………………………………J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
.......……………………………….J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL23, 2025.
2025 INSC 562
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). __________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 2570 of 2018)
MUPPIDI LAKSHMI NARAYANA
REDDY & ORS. ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Leave granted.
2. In the present appeal the appellants have challenged the
order passed by the High Court whereby their petition under
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C. No. 359 of
Date: 2025.04.23
18:05:10 IST
Reason:
2
2016 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class for
Prohibition & Excise Cases, Guntur was dismissed.
3 . The appellant No.1 (A4) is the sister-in-law of the de-facto
complainant, appellant No. 2 (A5) is the husband of A4 and
appellant No. 3 (A6) is the father-in-law of appellant No. 1
(A4).
4 . The marriage between de-facto complainant (respondent
no. 2) with Challa Poornananda Reddy (A1) was solemnised on
24.05.2014 at Guntur. After five months of the marriage, the
de-facto complainant left the company of her husband and
joined her parents to live at her parental house at Vidyanagar,
Guntur. On persuasion, she joined her husband but again went
back to her parental house and this act continued for some
more time compelling the husband to send a legal notice
followed by a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on
18.02.2015. During the pendency of this proceeding, she
lodged a complaint before the concerned police on 13.02.2016.
However, on intervention of elders a compromise was arrived at
on 02.04.2015 and the husband (A1) withdrew the case of
restitution of conjugal rights and the de-facto complainant also
withdrew her complaint before the concerned police.
3
5 . She later left for USA without intimating the husband or
his family members and the dispute continued. The husband
moved a petition for dissolution of marriage on 21.06.2016 and
as a counterblast she again lodged a police complaint bearing
FIR No. 79 of 2016 against six accused persons including the
present appellants.
6 . It is the case of the appellants that they are nowhere
connected with the dispute between the husband and the wife
or the husband’s family members. The appellants are residing
at Hyderabad. On the complaint of the father of the respondent
no. 2 (de–facto complainant) an offence under Section 66C of
the Information Technology Act was registered against the
husband (A1) which is pending as CC No. 775 of 2016 before
the learned Special Judicial First-Class Magistrate for
Prohibition and Excise, Gunturu, Andhra Pradesh. It is further
case of the appellants that accused no. 4 is a housewife,
accused no. 5 is a Software Engineer in a Private Software
Company and accused no. 6 is a Central Government employee
and all are stationed at Hyderabad having no connection or
intervention with the dispute between the de-facto complainant
and her husband.
4
7 . The High Court refused to allow the quashing petition on
the ground that there are allegations against the appellants for
which a trial is required and the same cannot be disbelieved at
this stage.
8 . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of record it appears that there are omnibus and general
allegations against the appellants. As per complaint, although,
they reside at Hyderabad, they used to visit Guntur and during
such visit they used to instigate accused no. 1/husband and his
parents and would also join in demanding dowry. The initial
allegation is of demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- made against
accused No. 4/appellant no. 1 with further statement that they
used to taunt that if accused no. 1 would have married
somewhere else, he would have got Rs. 10 crores dowry. There
is no allegation of any physical torture being perpetrated by the
present appellants. The allegation is only of taunt and
statement that they are highly placed having political influence
and connection with Ministers as such they instigated accused
no. 1 to accused no. 3 to pressurise the de-facto complainant
to get additional dowry.
5
9 . There is no denial of the fact that the appellants reside at
Hyderabad whereas the de-facto complainant stayed at Guntur
in her marital house. There is no specific date as to when the
present appellants visited Guntur and joined accused nos. 1 to
3 in demanding dowry from de-facto complainant. Considering
the growing trend of the dowry victim arraigning the relatives
of the husband, this Court in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra &
1
Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. has deprecated the
practice involving the relatives of the husband for the offence
under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961. The following has been held in para 18:
“ 18 . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh
case [(2005) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 735] had
been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made
against the sister-in-law by the complainant appeared
to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as
many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held
that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the
legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the
offences alleged against the appellants. The learned
Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the
allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge-
sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498-
A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
were made against the married sister of the
complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living
with the family of the complainant's husband. Their
Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold
that the High Court ought not to have relegated the
sister-in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the
1
(2012) 10 SCC 741
6
proceedings against the appellants were quashed and
the appeal was allowed.”
10. In a recent judgment in the matter of Dara Lakshmi
2
Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr. , this Court
has again reiterated and deprecated the practice of involving
the relatives of the husband in dowry related matters. The
following has been held in paras 24, 25, 28, 30, 31 & 32:
“ 24. Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we
find that they have no connection to the matter at hand
and have been dragged into the web of crime without
any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would
indicate that no substantial and specific allegations
have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other
than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1
for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact
that they never resided with the couple namely
appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children.
Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal,
Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos.4 to 6 live in Nellore,
Bengaluru and Guntur respectively.
25. 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. In the present
case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the
family of appellant No.1 have been living in different
cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of
2
(2024) INSC 953: (2024) 12 SCR 559
7
appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence,
they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and
the same would be an abuse of the process of the law
in the absence of specific allegations made against each
of them.
28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of
an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on
a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift
intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as
there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes
across the country, accompanied by growing discord
and tension within the institution of marriage,
consequently, there has been a growing tendency to
misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool
for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband
and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised
allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not
scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes
and an encouragement for use of arm-twisting tactics
by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is
taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the
husband and his family in order to seek compliance
with the unreasonable demands of a wife.
Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned
against prosecuting the husband and his family in the
absence of a clear prima facie case against them.
30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs.
L.H.V. Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows:
“12. There has been an outburst of
matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage
is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of
which is to enable the young couple to settle
down in life and live peacefully. But little
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which
often assume serious proportions resulting in
commission of heinous crimes in which elders
of the family are also involved with the result
that those who could have counselled and
brought about rapprochement are rendered
helpless on their being arrayed as accused in
the criminal case. There are many other
reasons which need not be mentioned here for
not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that
the parties may ponder over their defaults and
terminate their disputes amicably by mutual
8
agreement instead of fighting it out in a court
of law where it takes years and years to
conclude and in that process the parties lose
their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in
different courts.”
31 . Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of
Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have
to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with
these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment by the husband’s close
relatives who had been living in different cities and
never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely different
complexion. The allegations of the complainant are
required to be scrutinized with great care and
circumspection.
32 . We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned
FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was
initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores
and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family
members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the
present case at hand falls within category (7) of
illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal.
Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in
not exercising the powers available to it under Section
482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the
Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution
against the appellants.”
11. In the present case also, it is an admitted position that
the appellants are residing at Hyderabad whereas the de-facto
complainant stayed in her marital house at Guntur at the
relevant point of time. She is presently staying in USA. There
is omnibus allegation against the appellants that they too used
9
to demand dowry or instigate accused nos. 1 to 3 who are not
before us, in demanding dowry.
12 . Considering the entire facts of the case, we are of the
view, having relied on this Court’s previous decisions in Geeta
Mehrotra (supra) & Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra), the
present criminal case against the appellants deserves to be
quashed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and Criminal Case
No. 359 of 2016 against the appellants is quashed.
………………………………………J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
.......……………………………….J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL23, 2025.