With Divorce Accepted and FIR Seen as an Apparent Counterblast, MP HC Quashes 498-A and Dowry Case Against Husband, In-Laws

The petitioners—the husband and his parents—sought quashing of an FIR registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The parties married in 2009 and began living separately in 2018.

The petitioners contended that the wife lodged the FIR after the husband filed a divorce petition and that it was a counterblast; the FIR was registered on 8 December 2018, after notices in the divorce petition had issued.

During the quashing proceedings, the wife obtained an ex parte divorce decree on 15 November 2021. The husband did not challenge it and stated that he accepted the divorce.

The wife’s remarriage was disputed.

Section 498-A IPC addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives, while Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act address giving or taking dowry and demanding dowry.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162, cautions against allowing matrimonial complaints based on general or omnibus allegations to result in misuse of criminal process, particularly against relatives without a prima facie case.

The Court also relied on Mangeram v. State of M.P. & Anr., 2025 INSC 962, for the principle that, in the circumstances of an accepted and inevitable separation, continuing criminal proceedings against the husband’s family members may serve no useful purpose and may prolong bitterness, contrary to the ends of justice.

The Court noted that the FIR was lodged after notices were issued in the husband’s divorce petition, lending some support to the petitioners’ contention that it was a counterblast.

It also considered that the parties had been living separately since 2018, their marriage had ended by a divorce decree that the husband accepted, and their separation was therefore no longer in dispute.

Applying the principles in Kahkashan Kausar and Mangeram, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution in these circumstances would prolong bitterness and serve no useful purpose.