Full Judgment Text
1
2025 INSC 505
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). __________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 270 of 2022)
SUSHILA & ORS. ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Leave granted.
2 . Under the impugned order, the High Court has disposed of
the appellants’ prayer for quashing of the summoning order
dated 23.04.2018 issued by the Trial Court in Complaint Case
No. 2789 of 2015 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the
Signature Not Verified
1
Indian Pernal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2025.04.17
17:26:18 IST
Reason:
1
‘IPC’
2
Prohibition Act, 1961 without deciding the quashing petition on
merits.
3 . Kumar Saurabh is the husband of respondent no. 2 (Smt.
Charusmita) and the appellants are the relatives of Kumar
Saurabh. The appellant no.1 - Sushila is the mother, appellant
no. 2- Shailendra Dablu is the elder brother, appellant no. 3-
Seema is the sister-in-law, appellant no. 4- Kulshreshtha
Upadhyay is the elder brother and appellant no. 5 – Kanak is
the sister of Kumar Saurabh. Kumar Saurabh and respondent
no. 2 (Smt. Charusmita) were married on 17.06.2010. After
the marriage, they lived in Kota (Rajasthan) for a brief period
before she left the matrimonial home in October, 2010 taking
away all her possessions including stridhan and started living
with her parents.
4 . It is the case of the appellants that effort made by Kumar
Saurabh to bring back respondent no. 2 to resume matrimonial
life was not successful, compelling him to prefer a divorce
petition in the court of Family Judge, Kota, Rajasthan bearing
Case No. 476 of 2011. Respondent no. 2 failed to appear
before the Family Court despite receiving notice resulting in an
ex-parte divorce decree dated 31.05.2012 passed by the
3
Family Court, Kota. After about 03 years from the date of
passing of the divorce decree, respondent no. 2 moved an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar for registration of a
criminal case and making investigation. The said application
was treated as a complaint case wherein after recording
statement of respondent no. 2 and other witnesses, the learned
Magistrate issued summoning order on 23.04.2018 against the
appellants under Section 498A IPC.
5 . Being aggrieved, the appellants approached the High
Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing
the summoning order which was dismissed vide impugned
order.
6 . It is argued that the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance against the appellants without there being any
specific allegation against any one of them and only bald
statement has been made against the appellants stating that
they are also involved in harassing respondent no. 2 by
demanding dowry.
7 . Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents would
support the impugned order on submission that the appellants
4
being relatives of the husband were also involved in illtreating
respondent no. 2 and the truth will emerge during trial.
According to him, the present is not a fit case for quashing the
complaint at the threshold.
8 . A reading of the complaint (Annexure P-2) would reveal
that the marriage took place on 17.06.2010 and the couple
stayed at Varanasi for five days and proceeded to live in Kota
on and from 22.06.2010 where they lived for most of the time.
The complainant returned from Kota in October, 2010 and
thereafter, it is said that on 16.08.2015 the appellants came to
her house at Kota and demanded dowry by threatening and
illtreating her. It is also alleged that they snatched her
Mangalsutra and ran away.
9 . Admittedly, the marriage has already been dissolved by a
decree of divorce passed on 31.05.2012 and the present
complaint was filed after three years of divorce. Except for the
bald statement against the appellants, the other allegations are
against the husband. There is absolutely no reason or
justification as to why the appellants would try for a
reconciliation by visiting the house of the complainant on
16.08.2015 when the divorce has already taken place by order
5
dated 31.05.2012. Even if such an incident has happened on
16.08.2015, the fact remains that on the said date the
relationship of husband and wife has already come to an end as
such the appellants being relatives of the husband cannot be
proceeded for offence under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
10 . This Court in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs.
2
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. has deprecated the practice
of 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
2
(2012) 10 SCC 741
6
proceedings against the appellants were quashed and
the appeal was allowed.”
11. In a recent judgment in the matter of Dara Lakshmi
3
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
3
(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
572 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court
Reports 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
8
ponder over their defaults and terminate their
disputes amicably by mutual 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.”
12 . Having examined the allegations in the present case
vis-à-vis the law settled by this Court in Geeta Mehrotra
(supra) & Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra), we have no
hesitation in holding that the present appellants have
unnecessarily been roped in the complaint without there being
9
any specific allegation against them for any incident which had
taken place between the husband and the wife during
subsistence of marriage and the period when they stayed
together at Kota. As a matter of fact, the complaint is largely
devoted to the ill-treatment committed by the husband and the
only reference to the appellants is made for the incident dated
16.08.2015 at her own house at NOIDA. However, by that time,
the ex-parte decree of divorce has already been passed. In
such view of the matter, we are of the considered view that
allowing the trial to proceed against the appellants shall
amount to vexatious trial only for the reason that they are
relatives of the husband. Accordingly, we quash the Complaint
Case No. 2789 of 2015 against the appellants. The appeal
stands allowed.
………………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
.......……………………………….J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 16, 2025.
2025 INSC 505
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). __________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 270 of 2022)
SUSHILA & ORS. ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Leave granted.
2 . Under the impugned order, the High Court has disposed of
the appellants’ prayer for quashing of the summoning order
dated 23.04.2018 issued by the Trial Court in Complaint Case
No. 2789 of 2015 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the
Signature Not Verified
1
Indian Pernal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2025.04.17
17:26:18 IST
Reason:
1
‘IPC’
2
Prohibition Act, 1961 without deciding the quashing petition on
merits.
3 . Kumar Saurabh is the husband of respondent no. 2 (Smt.
Charusmita) and the appellants are the relatives of Kumar
Saurabh. The appellant no.1 - Sushila is the mother, appellant
no. 2- Shailendra Dablu is the elder brother, appellant no. 3-
Seema is the sister-in-law, appellant no. 4- Kulshreshtha
Upadhyay is the elder brother and appellant no. 5 – Kanak is
the sister of Kumar Saurabh. Kumar Saurabh and respondent
no. 2 (Smt. Charusmita) were married on 17.06.2010. After
the marriage, they lived in Kota (Rajasthan) for a brief period
before she left the matrimonial home in October, 2010 taking
away all her possessions including stridhan and started living
with her parents.
4 . It is the case of the appellants that effort made by Kumar
Saurabh to bring back respondent no. 2 to resume matrimonial
life was not successful, compelling him to prefer a divorce
petition in the court of Family Judge, Kota, Rajasthan bearing
Case No. 476 of 2011. Respondent no. 2 failed to appear
before the Family Court despite receiving notice resulting in an
ex-parte divorce decree dated 31.05.2012 passed by the
3
Family Court, Kota. After about 03 years from the date of
passing of the divorce decree, respondent no. 2 moved an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar for registration of a
criminal case and making investigation. The said application
was treated as a complaint case wherein after recording
statement of respondent no. 2 and other witnesses, the learned
Magistrate issued summoning order on 23.04.2018 against the
appellants under Section 498A IPC.
5 . Being aggrieved, the appellants approached the High
Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing
the summoning order which was dismissed vide impugned
order.
6 . It is argued that the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance against the appellants without there being any
specific allegation against any one of them and only bald
statement has been made against the appellants stating that
they are also involved in harassing respondent no. 2 by
demanding dowry.
7 . Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents would
support the impugned order on submission that the appellants
4
being relatives of the husband were also involved in illtreating
respondent no. 2 and the truth will emerge during trial.
According to him, the present is not a fit case for quashing the
complaint at the threshold.
8 . A reading of the complaint (Annexure P-2) would reveal
that the marriage took place on 17.06.2010 and the couple
stayed at Varanasi for five days and proceeded to live in Kota
on and from 22.06.2010 where they lived for most of the time.
The complainant returned from Kota in October, 2010 and
thereafter, it is said that on 16.08.2015 the appellants came to
her house at Kota and demanded dowry by threatening and
illtreating her. It is also alleged that they snatched her
Mangalsutra and ran away.
9 . Admittedly, the marriage has already been dissolved by a
decree of divorce passed on 31.05.2012 and the present
complaint was filed after three years of divorce. Except for the
bald statement against the appellants, the other allegations are
against the husband. There is absolutely no reason or
justification as to why the appellants would try for a
reconciliation by visiting the house of the complainant on
16.08.2015 when the divorce has already taken place by order
5
dated 31.05.2012. Even if such an incident has happened on
16.08.2015, the fact remains that on the said date the
relationship of husband and wife has already come to an end as
such the appellants being relatives of the husband cannot be
proceeded for offence under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
10 . This Court in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs.
2
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. has deprecated the practice
of 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
2
(2012) 10 SCC 741
6
proceedings against the appellants were quashed and
the appeal was allowed.”
11. In a recent judgment in the matter of Dara Lakshmi
3
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
3
(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
572 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court
Reports 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
8
ponder over their defaults and terminate their
disputes amicably by mutual 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.”
12 . Having examined the allegations in the present case
vis-à-vis the law settled by this Court in Geeta Mehrotra
(supra) & Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra), we have no
hesitation in holding that the present appellants have
unnecessarily been roped in the complaint without there being
9
any specific allegation against them for any incident which had
taken place between the husband and the wife during
subsistence of marriage and the period when they stayed
together at Kota. As a matter of fact, the complaint is largely
devoted to the ill-treatment committed by the husband and the
only reference to the appellants is made for the incident dated
16.08.2015 at her own house at NOIDA. However, by that time,
the ex-parte decree of divorce has already been passed. In
such view of the matter, we are of the considered view that
allowing the trial to proceed against the appellants shall
amount to vexatious trial only for the reason that they are
relatives of the husband. Accordingly, we quash the Complaint
Case No. 2789 of 2015 against the appellants. The appeal
stands allowed.
………………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
.......……………………………….J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 16, 2025.