Criminal proceedings against an accused’s mother cannot continue without specific allegations establishing her culpability.

The appellant, mother of the principal accused, sought quashing of the criminal proceedings against her under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The second respondent alleged that the appellant’s son had promised to marry her, obtained sexual favours on that basis, and appropriated substantial amounts through the sale of her car; she further alleged that the appellant had actively connived with her son.

FIR No. 11188009240223 of 2024 was registered at Modasa Town Police Station, District Aravalli, and a chargesheet was filed, resulting in proceedings in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 14 of 2024.

The Supreme Court examined the First Information Statement, the chargesheet, and translated copies of chats between the second respondent and the appellant’s son.

Whether the allegations in the First Information Statement and chargesheet disclosed sufficient criminal culpability against the appellant to justify continuation of the criminal proceedings.

Whether the appellant, merely because she was the mother of the principal accused, could be prosecuted on allegations of connivance unsupported by specific and credible material.

Whether the proceedings against the appellant were liable to be quashed in exercise of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which preserves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice; the same quashing principle was applied by the Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction.

Criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose criminal culpability or where the prosecution material is inherently unreliable.

A relative of the principal accused cannot be prosecuted merely on account of the familial relationship without specific, substantiated allegations connecting that person with the alleged offence.

The Court also assessed the allegation of a promise to marry in the context of the complainant’s admitted marital status and the surrounding material placed on record.

The Court found that the First Information Statement itself indicated a consensual relationship between the second respondent and the appellant’s son, while the allegations of forced physical relations and inducement by a promise of marriage were introduced without adequate substantiation.

The narrative also reflected changes in the complainant’s position regarding marriage, including rejection and subsequent acceptance of the proposal upon a promise of reform by the appellant’s son.

The Court observed that the allegations were bland and did not disclose criminal culpability, notwithstanding the lengthy chargesheet.

The chats produced by the appellant further undermined the credibility of the allegations.

In addition, the chargesheet contained the statement of the complainant’s father indicating that she was married and estranged from her husband, with no material showing that she had obtained a divorce; this materially weakened the assertion that she had been induced by a genuine promise of marriage.

The appellant’s mere status as the mother of the principal accused was insufficient to sustain the prosecution, particularly in the absence of specific and credible allegations against her.

It accordingly quashed the proceedings in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 14 of 2024, arising from Chargesheet No. 34 of 2024 and the stated FIR, insofar as they concerned the appellant.

The appeal was allowed; if the appellant was in custody, she was directed to be released forthwith, and if on bail, her bail bonds were ordered to stand cancelled.