Wife’s FIR Alleging Caste Abuse, Forgery And A Plot To Kill Her Survives Husband’s Quashing Plea In Uttarakhand HC

Respondent No. 3 alleged that the petitioner concealed his prior marriage, later physically assaulted and threatened her, made caste-related derogatory remarks, forged documents purporting to show her resignation as a company director, and conspired to kill her.

She lodged FIR/Case Crime No. 0158 of 2026 at Police Station Cantt., Dehradun, invoking Sections 120-B, 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, 495, 498-A, 504 and 506 IPC and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and protection from arrest, arguing that the allegations were false and arose from matrimonial discord.

The State and respondent No. 3 opposed the petition.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the High Court may quash an FIR where, among other circumstances, the allegations taken at face value do not disclose an offence or continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process; the power is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.

Under M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, the High Court should ordinarily refrain from interfering with an investigation or examining the merits, reliability or genuineness of allegations at the quashing stage.

The Court also applied the principle that quashing proceedings are not a mini-trial in which evidence is weighed for its likely effect on conviction.

The Court found that the FIR alleged more than matrimonial discord: it included physical assault, threats, caste-related remarks allegedly made in others’ presence, document fabrication and a conspiracy to cause respondent No. 3’s death.

The length of the marriage and the absence of earlier complaints did not, by themselves, negate the allegations.

Whether the caste-related remarks were made with the requisite intention or knowledge, and whether the audio recording and documents were genuine, required investigation and potentially consideration at trial.

The complainant’s statement under Section 180 BNSS reiterated the FIR, while a witness stated that, at the petitioner’s behest, he prepared the alleged resignation and related documents.

The Court held that these matters could not properly be determined by assessing evidence in quashing proceedings.

The writ petition, including the prayer for protection from arrest, was dismissed.