Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1287
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4752 OF 2025
[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO.1531 OF 2025]
MUSKAN … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ISHAAN KHAN (SATANIYA) AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present Appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated
19.07.2024 in Misc. Criminal Case No.10695 of 2024 passed by the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Indore wherein the High Court has quashed the
proceedings emanating from FIR No. 35 of 2024 dated 28.01.2024 registered at
Police Station Alot, District Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh under Section 498A of the
1
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 against private respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VARSHA MENDIRATTA
Date: 2025.11.06
17:46:31 IST
Reason:
1
“IPC”
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 1 of 17
3. At the outset, it will be pertinent to mention that respondent Nos.1 to 5
herein have not entered appearance in the present case and order dated
vide
28.03.2025, this Court appointed Mr. Prakhar Srivastava, learned counsel, as
Amicus Curiae to assist the Court (Pro Bono) on behalf of the unrepresented
respondents.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
4. Brief facts of the present matter are that the marriage between the
appellant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 20.11.2020 in accordance
with Muslim traditions and customs. From the marriage, a son was born.
During the initial days of the marriage, the appellant was treated well by
respondent No. 1 and his family members.
5. However, after 5-6 months of the marriage, the private respondents started
harassing the appellant by taunting her that her father had given nothing in
dowry. Her husband and other members of his family started hurling filthy
abuses at the appellant. Further, respondent No.1, told the appellant to fetch
Rs.50 lakhs from her father so that he can pass the MIC examination. He told
her, he will only keep her if she tells her father to give Rs.50 lakhs.
6. Due to continuous cruelty faced by the appellant at the hands of the
private respondents, she returned to her paternal home and registered an FIR
being FIR No.35 of 2024 registered at Police Station Alot, District Ratlam,
Madhya Pradesh under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 against Ishaan Khan, respondent No.1 (husband), Irfana
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 2 of 17
Bee, respondent No.2 (mother-in-law), Ishaaq Khan, respondent No.3 (father-in-
law), Aaysha Bee, respondent No.4 (sister-in-law) and Shahid Khan, respondent
No.5 (brother-in-law).
7. It was specifically mentioned in the FIR that after 5-6 months of marriage,
all the above-named persons started taunting her for not giving dowry. It was
stated that on 22.07.2021, respondent Nos.1 to 5 hurled abuses at her and her
brother-in-law, who is respondent No.5, slapped her and asked her to bring
dowry. Thereafter, on 27.11.2022, respondent No.1, her husband, asked her to
bring Rs.50 lakhs from her father as he wanted to pursue further medical
studies. Pursuant to which, her husband ousted both, the appellant and their
son Iwaan Khan, from the matrimonial house. Thereafter, the appellant started
residing with her parents. It was further stated on behalf of the appellant that
her father made several attempts to reconcile differences, but the private
respondents were adamant in their demand for the sum of Rs.50 lakhs.
8. Against FIR No.35 of 2024, respondent Nos.1 to 5 preferred Miscellaneous
Criminal Case No.10695 of 2024, a petition under Section 482 of the Code of
2
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 , for quashing of the said FIR registered under
Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
and all further proceedings arising therefrom.
2
For short, ‘the Cr.PC’
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 3 of 17
9. The High Court vide the impugned order dated 19.07.2024 allowed the
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.10695 of 2024. Being aggrieved thereby, the
present Appeal has been filed.
10. While issuing notice in this matter, this Court passed the following order
on 24.01.2025:
“1. Delay condoned.
rd
2. We have perused the complaint dated 23
January, 2023, filed by the instant petitioner at the
concerned police station, which is part of the
additional documents filed by the petitioner (page
no.6).
3. Prima facie , we are of the view that the matter
requires consideration, more so, in view of the
observation made by the High Court in Para No.10 of
the impugned order.
4. Issue notice, returnable on 28.02.2025.
5. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. Steps for
service be taken within two weeks.”
(emphasis supplied)
This Court noted that this matter requires consideration, more so, in view of the
observation made by the High Court in paragraph 10 of the impugned order.
B. SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Amicus
Curiae for the unrepresented private respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel
for respondent No.6-State of Madhya Pradesh.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 4 of 17
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6/State argues that
power of quashing should be exercised only in rarest of rare cases. The High
Court while examining an FIR/complaint ought not to embark upon an enquiry
as to the reliability and genuineness of allegations. It was also argued that
merely because the appellant did not mention the two specific incidents earlier
in the complaints before registration of the FIR, the same could not have been
termed as an afterthought when other specific allegations of harassment and
demand of dowry were mentioned. To bolster his submissions, reliance has been
placed on the decisions of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Private
3
Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others and State of Haryana and
4
Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others .
13. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on the behalf of the private respondents
submits that a bare perusal of the complaints dated 22.01.2023 and 23.01.2023
lodged by the appellant before the Women’s Cell in Ratlam and the subsequent
FIR dated 28.01.2024 would reveal that there are some inconsistencies in the
contents thereof. The complaints filed before the Women’s Cell in Ratlam are
generic in nature whereby the appellant had inter alia alleged that since her
marriage, she was not being treated properly and was subjected to abuses and
constant taunts for not bringing enough dowry and respondent No. 2 i.e. the
mother-in-law, was not providing enough food and water to her whilst also
keeping her under constant surveillance. Interestingly, there is no mention of
3
(2021) 19 SCC 401
4
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 5 of 17
either of the two dates i.e. 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022. Further, there is no
mention of a crystallized amount of dowry allegedly demanded by respondent
.
Nos. d1 to 5 in these complaints
14. It was further argued that the appellant was allegedly ousted from her
matrimonial home on 27.11.2022 by respondent No.1. Thereafter, she filed a
complaint before the Women’s Cell, Ratlam on 22.01.2023 whereas the FIR was
lodged after a delay of 1 year i.e. on 28.01.2024. Further, the contents of the
FIR reveal that the appellant has not made specific allegations against
respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and merely vague and omnibus averments have been
made, which even if relied on their face value, do not constitute the commission
of a cognizable offence.
15. To bolster his submissions, learned has relied on the
Amicus Curiae
decisions of this Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and
5 6
Others , Mahmood Ali and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others ,
7
Digambar and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Another and Dara
8
Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and Another .
16. The rival submissions now fall for our consideration.
5
(2014) 2 SCC 1
6
(2023) 15 SCC 488
7
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836
8
(2025) 3 SCC 735
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 6 of 17
C. ANALYSIS
17. The main issue that arises for our analysis is whether the High Court was
right in quashing the criminal proceedings against the private respondents
primarily on the ground that the earlier complaints did not mention the two
specific incidents dated 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022, which were later on added
in the FIR and whether the same would not amount to conducting a ‘mini trial’
which is clearly prohibited under the scheme of Section 482 of the Cr.PC.
18. At the outset it will be appropriate to advert to the observations made by
the High Court in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned order:
“9. It is undisputed that prior to filing FIR (Annexure P/5), a
written complaint dated 22.01.2023 (Annexure P/3) was filed
before Mahila Police Station, Ratlam, District Ratlam (MP) for the
alleged harassment meted out to respondent No.2 from her
husband and in-laws (applicants before this Court). It is also not
in dispute that both the parties i.e. applicant No. 1 and
respondent No.2, on their counter allegations, were advised by
Police Mahila Thana, Ratlam to take recourse of law, but no
action was taken on the above 3 MCRC-10695-2024 complaint
by respondent No.2. In such a situation, if respondent No.2 was
aggrieved of advice dated 23.01.2023 given by Mahila Police
Station, Ratlam, she might have approached the Superintendent
of Police for inaction on the part of the concerned Police Station
on her complaint, but this has not been done.
10. It is also pertinent to note that in the (sic) above written
complaint, there has not been a whisper of the events of
harassment on 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022, as narrated in the
FIR (Annexure P/5). It manifests that the alleged incidents of
harassment meted out to the complainant allegedly took place
on 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022 are afterthought. The
contentions raised on behalf of the applicants that FIR
(Annexure P/5) is a counterblast to notice (Annexure P/1) given
by applicant No. 1 to respondent No.2 also finds support from
the above.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. From a bare perusal of the above mentioned paragraphs it can be seen
that one of the important factors that weighed in while allowing the quashing
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 7 of 17
application of the private respondents was that in the earlier complaints filed by
the appellant, there was no mention of the events of harassment that happened
on 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022, which were later on added in the FIR dated
28.01.2024. Hence, we extract the relevant portion of the complaints dated
22.01.2023 and 23.01.2023 which would clearly indicate prime facie allegations
of harassment and demand of dowry against the private respondents:
“ 22.01.2023
…That immediately after the Nikah, the respondents
namely Ishan, father-in-law Ishaq Khan, mother-in-law
Irfana Bi, sister-in law (Nanad) Ayesha, Nandoi Shayid
Khan, Jeth Hemuddin son of Akbar Khan resident of Ujjain
started raising demand of dowry from me. They are
constantly causing physical and mental harassment for
the last two years. A demand of dowry is being raised every
day since the day of my marriage. My father gave a Pulsar
Bike but I was asked to bring a car. On the occasion of my
sister-in-law's wedding, they asked me to ask my father to
give an A.C to their daughter Ayesha in the dowry. My
mother-in-law did not allow my husband to come to the
hospital at the time of my delivery. At the time of my ‘God-
Bharai’, she demanded clothes and my mother-in-law puts
restrictions on my eating food and having breakfast. She
asks me to eat the same vegetable three times a day and
asks me not to eat breakfast, she lets me drink tea once a
day, she has installed cameras in my kitchen. My mother-
in-law locks me in the house from outside. She does not
allow me to talk to my husband. My husband would come
to me at 11 o'clock in the night and would quarrel with me
and assault me. My sister-in-law and brother-in-law would
come to Ghosla almost every day and would scare me and
threaten to kill me. They do not give me my mobile phone,
they do not let my family members come to Ghosla and
talk to me even on the phone. It is the daily routine of my
father-in-law to hurl abuses morning and evening.”
*
23.01.2023
…. Since after my marriage, I have been tortured and
threatened. Ask your father to give a car and a demand
was raised for an A.C. in my sister-in-law’s marriage.
When the demand could not be fulfilled by my father, I am
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 8 of 17
being made to eat same vegetable for three days and they
do not allow me to take my breakfast and I am given tea
only once in a day.
My mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law and
father-in-law come together to my room and hurl abuses
and threaten me. My father-in-law hurls abuses in
obscene language and my mother-in-law makes me work
the entire day and does not let me eat anything. My sister-
in-law and brother-in-law everyday tell my mother-in-law
to send him away over the phone. Many times they confine
me in the room and lock the same from outside and I am
not allowed to go out and I am not even allowed to open
the window of the house. They have confined me as
hostage in the house for many days. They do not let me
talk to my family on phone and do not even let my family
members meet me. My husband is also involved in all this.
He never gives me even 2 rupees for expenses. They do not
even allow me to visit my relatives. As such, being troubled
by all this, I came to my parents’ house.
….”
It is also apposite that we extract the relevant portions of the FIR so as to better
understand the allegations against the private respondents, particularly the two
specific incidents that happened on 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022. The relevant
extract reads thus:
“…..I kept tolerating their taunts in order to save my
marital life. But on 22.07.2021, my husband Ishan Khan,
mother-in-law Irfana Bee, father-in-law Ishaq Khan,
sister-in law Aaysha Bee and brother-in-law (Nandoi) Syed
Khan hurled abuses to me. My brother-in-law (Nandoi)
Syed Khan slapped me also and asked me to bring dowry
from your father's house. Despite all this, I kept tolerating
their torture. But on 27.11.2022, my husband Ishan Khan
told me that I have passed the examination of M.B.B.S.
and now I have to pursue M.C.I. Examination, as such,
now if you will bring an amount of Rs. fifty lacs from your
father, only then, I will keep you with me and say this, he
ousted me and my son Iwaan Khan from the house while
holding our hand. Thereafter, I came to my father Zahid
Khan's house at Alot and narrated the entire incident to
my father and mother Parveen Bee. Since then, I am
residing at Alot alongwith my father. My father made
several attempts to make my husband and in-laws
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 9 of 17
understand but these people are adamant for their
demand of dowry of a sum of Rs. fifty lacs that unless and
until, they are given a dowry of Rs. fifty lacs, they will not
take me with them. Today, I have come to make a report
in the police station alongwith my father Zahid Khan. I
lodge the report, action may be taken.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. The classic exposition on law under Section 482 of the CrP.C is found in
Bhajan Lal (supra) wherein this Court elaborated upon the scope of Section 482
of the Cr.PC. It was held thus:
“ 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 channelized 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 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.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 10 of 17
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4752 OF 2025
[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO.1531 OF 2025]
MUSKAN … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ISHAAN KHAN (SATANIYA) AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present Appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated
19.07.2024 in Misc. Criminal Case No.10695 of 2024 passed by the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Indore wherein the High Court has quashed the
proceedings emanating from FIR No. 35 of 2024 dated 28.01.2024 registered at
Police Station Alot, District Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh under Section 498A of the
1
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 against private respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VARSHA MENDIRATTA
Date: 2025.11.06
17:46:31 IST
Reason:
1
“IPC”
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 1 of 17
3. At the outset, it will be pertinent to mention that respondent Nos.1 to 5
herein have not entered appearance in the present case and order dated
vide
28.03.2025, this Court appointed Mr. Prakhar Srivastava, learned counsel, as
Amicus Curiae to assist the Court (Pro Bono) on behalf of the unrepresented
respondents.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
4. Brief facts of the present matter are that the marriage between the
appellant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 20.11.2020 in accordance
with Muslim traditions and customs. From the marriage, a son was born.
During the initial days of the marriage, the appellant was treated well by
respondent No. 1 and his family members.
5. However, after 5-6 months of the marriage, the private respondents started
harassing the appellant by taunting her that her father had given nothing in
dowry. Her husband and other members of his family started hurling filthy
abuses at the appellant. Further, respondent No.1, told the appellant to fetch
Rs.50 lakhs from her father so that he can pass the MIC examination. He told
her, he will only keep her if she tells her father to give Rs.50 lakhs.
6. Due to continuous cruelty faced by the appellant at the hands of the
private respondents, she returned to her paternal home and registered an FIR
being FIR No.35 of 2024 registered at Police Station Alot, District Ratlam,
Madhya Pradesh under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 against Ishaan Khan, respondent No.1 (husband), Irfana
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 2 of 17
Bee, respondent No.2 (mother-in-law), Ishaaq Khan, respondent No.3 (father-in-
law), Aaysha Bee, respondent No.4 (sister-in-law) and Shahid Khan, respondent
No.5 (brother-in-law).
7. It was specifically mentioned in the FIR that after 5-6 months of marriage,
all the above-named persons started taunting her for not giving dowry. It was
stated that on 22.07.2021, respondent Nos.1 to 5 hurled abuses at her and her
brother-in-law, who is respondent No.5, slapped her and asked her to bring
dowry. Thereafter, on 27.11.2022, respondent No.1, her husband, asked her to
bring Rs.50 lakhs from her father as he wanted to pursue further medical
studies. Pursuant to which, her husband ousted both, the appellant and their
son Iwaan Khan, from the matrimonial house. Thereafter, the appellant started
residing with her parents. It was further stated on behalf of the appellant that
her father made several attempts to reconcile differences, but the private
respondents were adamant in their demand for the sum of Rs.50 lakhs.
8. Against FIR No.35 of 2024, respondent Nos.1 to 5 preferred Miscellaneous
Criminal Case No.10695 of 2024, a petition under Section 482 of the Code of
2
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 , for quashing of the said FIR registered under
Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
and all further proceedings arising therefrom.
2
For short, ‘the Cr.PC’
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 3 of 17
9. The High Court vide the impugned order dated 19.07.2024 allowed the
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.10695 of 2024. Being aggrieved thereby, the
present Appeal has been filed.
10. While issuing notice in this matter, this Court passed the following order
on 24.01.2025:
“1. Delay condoned.
rd
2. We have perused the complaint dated 23
January, 2023, filed by the instant petitioner at the
concerned police station, which is part of the
additional documents filed by the petitioner (page
no.6).
3. Prima facie , we are of the view that the matter
requires consideration, more so, in view of the
observation made by the High Court in Para No.10 of
the impugned order.
4. Issue notice, returnable on 28.02.2025.
5. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. Steps for
service be taken within two weeks.”
(emphasis supplied)
This Court noted that this matter requires consideration, more so, in view of the
observation made by the High Court in paragraph 10 of the impugned order.
B. SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Amicus
Curiae for the unrepresented private respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel
for respondent No.6-State of Madhya Pradesh.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 4 of 17
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6/State argues that
power of quashing should be exercised only in rarest of rare cases. The High
Court while examining an FIR/complaint ought not to embark upon an enquiry
as to the reliability and genuineness of allegations. It was also argued that
merely because the appellant did not mention the two specific incidents earlier
in the complaints before registration of the FIR, the same could not have been
termed as an afterthought when other specific allegations of harassment and
demand of dowry were mentioned. To bolster his submissions, reliance has been
placed on the decisions of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Private
3
Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others and State of Haryana and
4
Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others .
13. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on the behalf of the private respondents
submits that a bare perusal of the complaints dated 22.01.2023 and 23.01.2023
lodged by the appellant before the Women’s Cell in Ratlam and the subsequent
FIR dated 28.01.2024 would reveal that there are some inconsistencies in the
contents thereof. The complaints filed before the Women’s Cell in Ratlam are
generic in nature whereby the appellant had inter alia alleged that since her
marriage, she was not being treated properly and was subjected to abuses and
constant taunts for not bringing enough dowry and respondent No. 2 i.e. the
mother-in-law, was not providing enough food and water to her whilst also
keeping her under constant surveillance. Interestingly, there is no mention of
3
(2021) 19 SCC 401
4
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 5 of 17
either of the two dates i.e. 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022. Further, there is no
mention of a crystallized amount of dowry allegedly demanded by respondent
.
Nos. d1 to 5 in these complaints
14. It was further argued that the appellant was allegedly ousted from her
matrimonial home on 27.11.2022 by respondent No.1. Thereafter, she filed a
complaint before the Women’s Cell, Ratlam on 22.01.2023 whereas the FIR was
lodged after a delay of 1 year i.e. on 28.01.2024. Further, the contents of the
FIR reveal that the appellant has not made specific allegations against
respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and merely vague and omnibus averments have been
made, which even if relied on their face value, do not constitute the commission
of a cognizable offence.
15. To bolster his submissions, learned has relied on the
Amicus Curiae
decisions of this Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and
5 6
Others , Mahmood Ali and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others ,
7
Digambar and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Another and Dara
8
Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and Another .
16. The rival submissions now fall for our consideration.
5
(2014) 2 SCC 1
6
(2023) 15 SCC 488
7
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836
8
(2025) 3 SCC 735
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 6 of 17
C. ANALYSIS
17. The main issue that arises for our analysis is whether the High Court was
right in quashing the criminal proceedings against the private respondents
primarily on the ground that the earlier complaints did not mention the two
specific incidents dated 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022, which were later on added
in the FIR and whether the same would not amount to conducting a ‘mini trial’
which is clearly prohibited under the scheme of Section 482 of the Cr.PC.
18. At the outset it will be appropriate to advert to the observations made by
the High Court in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned order:
“9. It is undisputed that prior to filing FIR (Annexure P/5), a
written complaint dated 22.01.2023 (Annexure P/3) was filed
before Mahila Police Station, Ratlam, District Ratlam (MP) for the
alleged harassment meted out to respondent No.2 from her
husband and in-laws (applicants before this Court). It is also not
in dispute that both the parties i.e. applicant No. 1 and
respondent No.2, on their counter allegations, were advised by
Police Mahila Thana, Ratlam to take recourse of law, but no
action was taken on the above 3 MCRC-10695-2024 complaint
by respondent No.2. In such a situation, if respondent No.2 was
aggrieved of advice dated 23.01.2023 given by Mahila Police
Station, Ratlam, she might have approached the Superintendent
of Police for inaction on the part of the concerned Police Station
on her complaint, but this has not been done.
10. It is also pertinent to note that in the (sic) above written
complaint, there has not been a whisper of the events of
harassment on 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022, as narrated in the
FIR (Annexure P/5). It manifests that the alleged incidents of
harassment meted out to the complainant allegedly took place
on 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022 are afterthought. The
contentions raised on behalf of the applicants that FIR
(Annexure P/5) is a counterblast to notice (Annexure P/1) given
by applicant No. 1 to respondent No.2 also finds support from
the above.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. From a bare perusal of the above mentioned paragraphs it can be seen
that one of the important factors that weighed in while allowing the quashing
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 7 of 17
application of the private respondents was that in the earlier complaints filed by
the appellant, there was no mention of the events of harassment that happened
on 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022, which were later on added in the FIR dated
28.01.2024. Hence, we extract the relevant portion of the complaints dated
22.01.2023 and 23.01.2023 which would clearly indicate prime facie allegations
of harassment and demand of dowry against the private respondents:
“ 22.01.2023
…That immediately after the Nikah, the respondents
namely Ishan, father-in-law Ishaq Khan, mother-in-law
Irfana Bi, sister-in law (Nanad) Ayesha, Nandoi Shayid
Khan, Jeth Hemuddin son of Akbar Khan resident of Ujjain
started raising demand of dowry from me. They are
constantly causing physical and mental harassment for
the last two years. A demand of dowry is being raised every
day since the day of my marriage. My father gave a Pulsar
Bike but I was asked to bring a car. On the occasion of my
sister-in-law's wedding, they asked me to ask my father to
give an A.C to their daughter Ayesha in the dowry. My
mother-in-law did not allow my husband to come to the
hospital at the time of my delivery. At the time of my ‘God-
Bharai’, she demanded clothes and my mother-in-law puts
restrictions on my eating food and having breakfast. She
asks me to eat the same vegetable three times a day and
asks me not to eat breakfast, she lets me drink tea once a
day, she has installed cameras in my kitchen. My mother-
in-law locks me in the house from outside. She does not
allow me to talk to my husband. My husband would come
to me at 11 o'clock in the night and would quarrel with me
and assault me. My sister-in-law and brother-in-law would
come to Ghosla almost every day and would scare me and
threaten to kill me. They do not give me my mobile phone,
they do not let my family members come to Ghosla and
talk to me even on the phone. It is the daily routine of my
father-in-law to hurl abuses morning and evening.”
*
23.01.2023
…. Since after my marriage, I have been tortured and
threatened. Ask your father to give a car and a demand
was raised for an A.C. in my sister-in-law’s marriage.
When the demand could not be fulfilled by my father, I am
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 8 of 17
being made to eat same vegetable for three days and they
do not allow me to take my breakfast and I am given tea
only once in a day.
My mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law and
father-in-law come together to my room and hurl abuses
and threaten me. My father-in-law hurls abuses in
obscene language and my mother-in-law makes me work
the entire day and does not let me eat anything. My sister-
in-law and brother-in-law everyday tell my mother-in-law
to send him away over the phone. Many times they confine
me in the room and lock the same from outside and I am
not allowed to go out and I am not even allowed to open
the window of the house. They have confined me as
hostage in the house for many days. They do not let me
talk to my family on phone and do not even let my family
members meet me. My husband is also involved in all this.
He never gives me even 2 rupees for expenses. They do not
even allow me to visit my relatives. As such, being troubled
by all this, I came to my parents’ house.
….”
It is also apposite that we extract the relevant portions of the FIR so as to better
understand the allegations against the private respondents, particularly the two
specific incidents that happened on 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022. The relevant
extract reads thus:
“…..I kept tolerating their taunts in order to save my
marital life. But on 22.07.2021, my husband Ishan Khan,
mother-in-law Irfana Bee, father-in-law Ishaq Khan,
sister-in law Aaysha Bee and brother-in-law (Nandoi) Syed
Khan hurled abuses to me. My brother-in-law (Nandoi)
Syed Khan slapped me also and asked me to bring dowry
from your father's house. Despite all this, I kept tolerating
their torture. But on 27.11.2022, my husband Ishan Khan
told me that I have passed the examination of M.B.B.S.
and now I have to pursue M.C.I. Examination, as such,
now if you will bring an amount of Rs. fifty lacs from your
father, only then, I will keep you with me and say this, he
ousted me and my son Iwaan Khan from the house while
holding our hand. Thereafter, I came to my father Zahid
Khan's house at Alot and narrated the entire incident to
my father and mother Parveen Bee. Since then, I am
residing at Alot alongwith my father. My father made
several attempts to make my husband and in-laws
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 9 of 17
understand but these people are adamant for their
demand of dowry of a sum of Rs. fifty lacs that unless and
until, they are given a dowry of Rs. fifty lacs, they will not
take me with them. Today, I have come to make a report
in the police station alongwith my father Zahid Khan. I
lodge the report, action may be taken.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. The classic exposition on law under Section 482 of the CrP.C is found in
Bhajan Lal (supra) wherein this Court elaborated upon the scope of Section 482
of the Cr.PC. It was held thus:
“ 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 channelized 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 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.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 10 of 17
| (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 the accused and with a view to spite him due to private | ||
| and personal grudge.” | ||
as follows:
| “26. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court | ||
|---|---|---|
| under Section 482 CrPC, to interfere with criminal | ||
| proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with | ||
| circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under | ||
| Section 482 CrPC is not to be exercised for the asking. | ||
| 27. In Monica Kumar v. State of U.P. [(2008) 8 SCC 781 : | ||
| (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 649], this Court held that inherent | ||
| jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised | ||
| sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such | ||
| exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in | ||
| the section itself. | ||
| 28. In exceptional cases, to prevent abuse of the process | ||
| of the Court, the High Court might in exercise of its |
9
(2022) 16 SCC 117
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 11 of 17
| inherent powers under Section 482 quash criminal | ||
|---|---|---|
| proceedings. However, interference would only be justified | ||
| when the complaint did not disclose any offence, or was | ||
| patently frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, as held by this | ||
| Court in Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar [1990 | ||
| Supp SCC 686 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 142 : AIR 1990 SC 494] . | ||
| ***** | ||
| 36. Offence under Section 306 IPC of abetment to commit | ||
| suicide is a grave, non-compoundable offence. Of course, | ||
| the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 | ||
| CrPC is wide and can even be exercised to quash criminal | ||
| proceedings relating to non-compoundable offences, to | ||
| secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the | ||
| process of court. Where the victim and offender have | ||
| compromised disputes essentially civil and personal in | ||
| nature, the High Court can exercise its power under | ||
| Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings. In | ||
| what cases power to quash an FIR or a criminal complaint | ||
| or criminal proceedings upon compromise can be | ||
| exercised, would depend on the facts and circumstances | ||
| of the case.” | ||
it is settled that at the stage of quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a
mini trial. Thus, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC with respect to
quashing is somewhat limited as the Court has to only consider whether any
sufficient material is available to proceed against the accused or not. If sufficient
material is available, the power under Section 482 should not be exercised.
| 23. This Court in the case of | State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty and |
10
Others
held that:
“ 8.2. It is trite that the power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare
cases. As per the settled proposition of law while
examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought,
the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the
FIR/complaint. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
10
(2022) 16 SCC 703
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 12 of 17
| exception rather than any ordinary rule. Normally the | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| criminal proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of | |||
| powers under Section 482 CrPC when after a thorough | |||
| investigation the charge-sheet has been filed. At the stage | |||
| of discharge and/or considering the application under | |||
| Section 482CrPC the courts are not required to go into the | |||
| merits of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if | |||
| conducting the mini-trial. As held by this Court the powers | |||
| under Section 482 CrPC are very wide, but conferment of | |||
| wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts | |||
| an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.” | |||
| ther in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh | |||
| Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh |
11
and Others , this Court held that at the stage of Section 482 of the Cr.PC, the
High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial.
| “6. From the impugned common judgment and order [Aryan | ||
|---|---|---|
| Singh v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 4158] passed by the High | ||
| Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the | ||
| proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a | ||
| mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the | ||
| applications against the judgment and order passed by the | ||
| learned trial court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal | ||
| principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the | ||
| criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section | ||
| 482 CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. | ||
| The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order | ||
| has observed that the charges against the accused are not | ||
| proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating | ||
| agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are | ||
| required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence | ||
| led by the prosecution/investigating agency.” | ||
| (emphasis supplied) | ||
following directions to the Courts exercising the power under Section 482 of the
Cr.PC:
“ Conclusions
33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether
the High Court would be justified in passing an interim
order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to
11
(2023) 18 SCC 399
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 13 of 17
be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition
under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and in what circumstances and
whether the High Court would be justified in passing the
order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to
be adopted” during the investigation or till the final
report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while
dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing
the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of
powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as
under:
33.1 ….
33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences.
33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or
offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information
report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go
on.
33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly
with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the
“rarest of rare cases” (not to be confused with the
formation in the context of death penalty).
33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of
which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry
as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
33.6 ….
33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception rather than an ordinary rule.
33.8 to 33.11 ….
33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the
offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the
police is in progress, the court should not go into the
merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be
permitted to complete the investigation. It would be
premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 14 of 17
| facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be | ||
|---|---|---|
| investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. | ||
| After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that | ||
| there is no substance in the application made by the | ||
| complainant, the investigating officer may file an | ||
| appropriate report/summary before the learned | ||
| Magistrate which may be considered by the learned | ||
| Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure. | ||
| 33.13 and 33.14 ….. | ||
| 33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the | ||
| alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power | ||
| under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether the | ||
| allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable | ||
| offence or not. The court is not required to consider on | ||
| merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make | ||
| out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the | ||
| investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in | ||
| the FIR.” | ||
| (emphasis supplied) | ||
12
Jeelani and Others held that:
| “13. There can be no dispute over the proposition that | ||
|---|---|---|
| inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be | ||
| exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only | ||
| when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid | ||
| down in the provision itself. There is no denial of the fact | ||
| that the power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide but it | ||
| needs no special emphasis to state that conferment of wide | ||
| power requires the Court to be more cautious. It casts an | ||
| onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. | ||
| 14. In this regard, it would be seemly to reproduce a | ||
| passage from Kurukshetra University [Kurukshetra | ||
| University v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451: 1977 | ||
| SCC (Cri) 613] wherein Chandrachud, J. (as his Lordship | ||
| then was) opined thus : (SCC p. 451, para 2) | ||
| “2. It surprises us in the extreme that the | ||
| High Court thought that in the exercise of | ||
| its inherent powers under Section 482 of | ||
| the Code of Criminal Procedure, it could |
12
(2017) 2 SCC 779
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 15 of 17
| quash a first information report. The police | |
|---|---|
| had not even commenced investigation | |
| into the complaint filed by the Warden of | |
| the University and no proceeding at all was | |
| pending in any court in pursuance of the | |
| FIR. It ought to be realised that inherent | |
| powers do not confer an arbitrary | |
| jurisdiction on the High Court to act | |
| according to whim or caprice. That | |
| statutory power has to be exercised | |
| sparingly, with circumspection and in the | |
| rarest of rare cases.”” | |
| (emphasis supplied) | |
an enquiry with regard to credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the
complaints and the FIR. Normally, for quashing an FIR, it must be shown that
there exists no prime facie case against the accused persons. In the present
case, from the conjoint reading of the complaints and the FIR, it can be seen that
prime facie allegations of harassment and demand of dowry are made out, despite
that the High Court quashed the FIR against the private respondents primarily
on the ground that the earlier two complaints that were filed by the appellant
did not mention the specific instances that happened on 22.07.2021 and
27.11.2022 and the same were later on mentioned in the FIR only as an
afterthought and was a counterblast to the legal notice sent by respondent
no.1/husband to the appellant as she was not coming back to her matrimonial
home. This approach adopted by the High Court, in our considered opinion,
amounts to conducting a mini trial .
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 16 of 17
28. Accordingly, in our view, the present case warrants interference by this
Court, and we do so. We hereby set aside the impugned order passed by the
High Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.10695 of 2024.
29. The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. All contentions and defences available
to the respective parties are kept open which shall be considered by the Trial
Court on its own merits and in accordance with law.
………………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
………………………………………J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 06, 2025
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1531/2025 Page 17 of 17