12 February 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law   |   FIR >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) and subsequent charge sheet filed against a husband and his family members, deeming the allegations "vexatious" and indicative of an ulterior motive. The Court's decision highlighted the importance of specific allegations in FIRs and the potential for abuse of process, particularly in matrimonial disputes.

The case involved a couple whose marriage, solemnized in 2016, ended in divorce. The husband filed for divorce in June 2021, and two months later, the wife filed the FIR against him, his brother, and his parents, alleging offences under Sections 498A, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Initially, the FIR also included allegations of rape against the husband's brother.

A key point of contention was the allegation of rape. Despite the serious nature of the charge, after investigation, no charge sheet was filed under Section 376 of the IPC, and the complainant did not file a protest petition challenging this decision. This left the remaining allegations, which the Supreme Court found to be "general and omnibus in nature, with no specific details."

The Court noted that the FIR was filed approximately two months after the husband initiated divorce proceedings. This timing, combined with the lack of specifics in the FIR and the dropping of the rape charge, led the Court to conclude that the FIR appeared to be a retaliatory measure intended to harass the husband and his family. The Court observed that the FIR lacked crucial details such as the date and time of the alleged offenses.

The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of High Courts to carefully scrutinize quashing petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Citing several precedents, including Iqbal alias Bala and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, Monica Kumar (Dr.) and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, Mala Kar and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, Arun Jain and others Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another, and P. V. Krishnabhat & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors., the Court reiterated that while inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly, it is essential to prevent abuse of process and ensure substantial justice.

The Court stressed that when allegations in an FIR appear to be vague, general, or aimed at wreaking vengeance, High Courts should look beyond the mere wording of the FIR and consider the surrounding circumstances. In this case, the timing of the FIR, the dropping of the rape charge, the lack of specific details, and the subsequent divorce and remarriage of the husband all pointed towards the FIR being a retaliatory and vexatious action.

Drawing parallels with Mala Kar, where the Court quashed proceedings after a divorce and remarriage, the Supreme Court in this case also highlighted the fact that the parties had moved on with their lives. In light of these factors, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the FIR and the charge sheet, bringing an end to the criminal proceedings against the husband and his family. This decision serves as a reminder that FIRs should be based on specific and credible allegations, and that courts must be vigilant against their misuse, particularly in matrimonial disputes.

Section 498A., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 504., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 506., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961