Successive matrimonial FIRs are maintainable where they disclose fresh and graver cognizable allegations.

The petitioner, the mother-in-law of respondent no. 2, sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC of: (i) Raha P.S. Case No. 299/2020 and the resulting charge-sheet under Section 498A IPC; (ii) Raha P.S. Case No. 159/2021 and the resulting charge-sheet under Section 498A IPC; and (iii) DV Case No. 172/2023 instituted under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The complainant initially lodged an FIR alleging dowry demands, abuse, and attempts by her husband, allegedly at the petitioner’s instigation, to kill her using a knife and kerosene. The police submitted a final report after the complainant stated that the FIR arose from a misunderstanding and that the dispute had been settled; the final report was accepted on 28 December 2020.

Subsequently, the complainant lodged another FIR alleging renewed dowry demands, the throwing of boiling water upon her by the petitioner, and an attempt by her husband to kill her with a machete. A charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and her son under Section 498A IPC.

Although the complainant and her husband later entered into an agreement to resume their matrimonial relationship and settle the dispute, she subsequently lodged another complaint alleging further dowry demands, physical torture, eviction from the matrimonial home, strangulation attempts, and other acts of cruelty. Raha P.S. Case No. 159/2021 was registered and a charge-sheet was filed under Section 498A IPC.

The complainant thereafter instituted proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act alleging dowry-related harassment, attempts to burn her, coercion to transfer land, termination of pregnancy, and other forms of domestic abuse.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings arising from Raha P.S. Case No. 299/2020 and Raha P.S. Case No. 159/2021, together with the charge-sheets under Section 498A IPC, disclosed prima facie cognizable offences warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC?

2. Whether the subsequent FIRs were impermissible multiple FIRs concerning the same transaction and therefore amounted to an abuse of the process of law?

3. Whether the proceedings in DV Case No. 172/2023 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act were liable to be quashed along with the criminal proceedings?

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, under which the High Court may exercise inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of any court or secure the ends of justice.

It relied principally on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which permits quashing where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not constitute an offence, are inherently improbable, or where proceedings are manifestly mala fide; however, proceedings should not be quashed where the allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence.

The Court also applied Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 6 SCC 384, holding that the permissibility of a subsequent FIR depends on the “test of sameness”; a later FIR may be maintainable where it concerns a distinct occurrence or contains substantially different and graver allegations.

The petitioner’s reliance on Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 5 SCC 435, Tarak Dash Mukharjee v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2121, and Sharif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 14 SCC 122 was noted in relation to multiple complaints and proper investigation, but was not accepted as requiring quashing on the facts.

The Court further treated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as beneficial, protective proceedings distinct from the criminal prosecution.

The Court held that the allegations in Raha P.S. Case No. 299/2020—particularly the allegations of dowry demand, throwing boiling water, and an attempted killing by the complainant’s husband—prima facie disclosed cognizable offences and were supported by the charge-sheet; therefore, the Bhajan Lal threshold for quashing was not satisfied.

The subsequent complaint was not treated merely as an impermissible repetition because it alleged later events and additional, graver conduct, including a demand for ₹10 lakhs, eviction, and attempted strangulation.

The earlier settlement agreement between the complainant and her husband did not justify quashing because it had not resulted in withdrawal or judicial settlement of the pending criminal case, and the allegations remained matters for trial.

The Court also found that the Domestic Violence Act application contained specific allegations of domestic abuse and sought statutory protective and remedial orders; its beneficial and protective character supplied an independent basis for allowing the proceeding to continue.

It held that the allegations disclosed prima facie cognizable offences, the subsequent FIR involved later and graver allegations rather than being wholly barred by the rule against successive FIRs, and the Domestic Violence Act proceeding was independently maintainable.