Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Indore bench order that had quashed an FIR under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, filed by a woman against her husband and his family.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra criticized the High Court for holding a 'mini-trial' at the quashing stage, going into the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint.

The Court referred to the judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) 19 SCC 401, which held that “while examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.”

Referring to precedents such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Daxaben v. State of Gujarat and Others (2022), State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty and Others the Court observed :

"On the aspect of the powers of the Courts under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, it is settled that at the stage of quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. Thus, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC with respect to quashing is somewhat limited as the Court has to only consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed against the accused or not. If sufficient material is available, the power under Section 482 should not be exercised."

The case involved serious allegations of dowry harassment against the Appellant by her husband and in-laws. The prosecution alleged that after 5-6 months of marriage, the respondents began harassing her for dowry, demanding Rs. 50 lakhs from her father for the husband's medical studies, and eventually ousting her from the matrimonial home along with her son.

The High Court had quashed the FIR primarily based on an inconsistency in the victim's case, as two specific incidents dated July 22, 2021, and November 27, 2022, were not mentioned in the victim's earlier complaints to the Women's Cell, terming them an "afterthought."

Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra observed that the High Court's decision to quash the FIR amounted to holding a mini-trial, which is impermissible at the quashing stage.

“We are of the view that the High Court has erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard to credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the complaints and the FIR. Normally, for quashing an FIR, it must be shown that there exists no prime facie case against the accused persons. In the present case, from the conjoint reading of the complaints and the FIR, it can be seen that prime facie allegations of harassment and demand of dowry are made out, despite that the High Court quashed the FIR against the private respondents primarily on the ground that the earlier two complaints that were filed by the appellant did not mention the specific instances that happened on 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022 and the same were later on mentioned in the FIR only as an afterthought and was a counterblast to the legal notice sent by respondent no.1/husband to the appellant as she was not coming back to her matrimonial home. This approach adopted by the High Court, in our considered opinion, amounts to conducting a mini trial.”, the court said.

Cause Title: MUSKAN VERSUS ISHAAN KHAN (SATANIYA) AND OTHERS

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1080

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Pavani Verma, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Gautam Singh, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. Yaduven, Adv.