+91 964 334 1948
24 Sep 2025, 02:57 PM
The Supreme Court once again reiterated that criminal cases arising out of matrimonial disputes have to be scrutinised with great care, taking into account pragmatic realities.
Quashing an FIR lodged by a wife against her brother-in-law alleging offences of dowry harassment, domestic cruelty etc, the Court observed :
"Courts have to be careful and cautious in dealing with complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial disputes where the allegations have to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law."
The bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan allowed the appeal against the Allahabad High Court's refusal to quash the FIR. The case was lodged by the complainant-wife, naming her husband, mother-in-law, and the appellant (brother-in-law) under Sections 323, 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Court found that the allegations made against the appellant were general, vague, and lacking specific details such as time, place, or manner of harassment. It noted that while the FIR alleged cruelty and dowry demands, no proximate act attributable to the appellant was spelt out.
“Mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out specific details would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings against any person,” the Court observed, warning against the tendency to implicate all family members in matrimonial disputes.
Referring to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Court reiterated that proceedings can be quashed where allegations are inherently improbable or fail to disclose a cognizable offence.
It also cited Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Bihar (2025), which held that sweeping accusations against relatives in dowry-related cases “must be nipped in the bud” to prevent misuse of Section 498A IPC.
In Dara Lakshmi Narayana, the Court had observed :
In recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family."
The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order and quashed the FIR only against the appellant-brother-in-law, clarifying that pending matrimonial proceedings between the parties would continue on their own merits.
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Saurabh Soni, Advocate, Mr. Maneesh Saxena, Advocate, Mr. Anupam Singh, AOR, and Ms. Mannat Singh, Advocate.
For the respondent(s): Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR, Mr. Vikas Bansal, Advocate, Ms. Apurva Singh, Advocate, Mr. Devesh Kumar Mishra, AOR, and Mr. Vasasntha Kumar, Advocate.
Case : Shobhit Kumar Mittal v State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 945
Click here to read the judgmnet