Madras HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Husband Accused Of Sex On Marriage Promise, Sets 12-Week Probe Deadline

In brief

The question

Whether the FIR should be quashed at the threshold on the petitioner’s contention that the allegations were baseless.

The court held

The Court answered the quashing issue in the negative and dismissed the petition.

It also directed

It directed the first respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No. 12 of 2026 and file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate within twelve weeks of receiving the order, if not already filed.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

01Facts

The complainant alleged that the petitioner had a physical relationship with her for three years on a promise of marriage, later married her at a temple, then refused to lead a matrimonial life and pledged her jewellery.

pp. 2–3

The complaint also alleged dowry demands and threats by the petitioner and his relatives.

pp. 2–3

Police registered Crime No. 12 of 2026 for offences under Sections 296(b), 351(3), 69 and 83 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

pp. 2–3

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS; the prosecution stated that investigation was nearly complete.

p. 1, 3

02Issues

i.Whether the FIR should be quashed at the threshold on the petitioner’s contention that the allegations were baseless.

pp. 3–4, 6

ii.Whether the investigating agency should be directed to complete the investigation and file its final report within a specified period.

p. 7

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

pp. 4–6

At the FIR stage, quashing is exceptional: the court considers whether the allegations disclose a cognizable offence, not whether they will ultimately establish guilt; an FIR is not an encyclopaedia, and the court should ordinarily permit an ongoing investigation to be completed.

pp. 4–6

The Court relied on Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 14 SCC 350, and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315.

pp. 4–6

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 296 Section 351 Section 69 Section 83

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Section 4

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

04Reasoning

The FIR contained specific allegations which, on a prima facie assessment, attracted the offences alleged and required investigation.

p. 4

Applying the principles in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar and Neeharika Infrastructure, the Court declined to assess the ultimate merits or potential for conviction while investigation remained ongoing.

pp. 4, 6–7

It considered that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the investigating agency should be allowed to investigate.

pp. 4, 6–7