Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry Harassment Case: “Allegations Found Vexatious, Filed with Ulterior Motive After Divorce Proceedings”

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and chargesheet filed against the appellants under Sections 498A, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court held that the allegations made were vexatious and filed with an ulterior motive after the divorce proceedings were initiated by the husband. The Court observed:

“In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the FIR No. 733/2021 and the charge-sheet dated 02.02.2022 in the matter deserve to be quashed and are accordingly quashed.”

The Court also emphasized that the High Court failed to properly examine the FIR, which lacked specific allegations and essential details.

Facts

1. The marriage between the husband (Appellant No. 3) and the complainant (Respondent No. 2) was solemnized in 2016 according to Hindu customs.
2. The husband filed a divorce petition on 17.06.2021 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage before the Family Court, Bareilly.
3. On 19.08.2021, the complainant lodged an FIR accusing her husband, brother-in-law, and in-laws of offenses under Sections 498A, 354, 328, 376, 352, 504, and 506 of the IPC, and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. The investigation was conducted by two officers, and the chargesheet was filed for offenses under Sections 498A, 504, and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. No charges were framed under Section 376 IPC. Respondent No. 2 did not file a protest petition against the exclusion of Section 376 IPC.
5. The appellants approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the FIR and chargesheet. The High Court dismissed the petition, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Did the High Court err in dismissing the petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR and chargesheet?
2. Were the allegations in the FIR and the subsequent criminal proceedings vexatious and instituted with an ulterior motive?
3. Should the Supreme Court exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the proceedings?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Counterblast to Divorce Proceedings: The FIR was filed two months after the husband filed a divorce petition, indicating an attempt to harass and humiliate the appellants.
2. Contradictory Statements: The complainant’s statement under Section 164 CrPC deviated significantly from the allegations in the FIR, raising doubts about the veracity of the claims.
3. Lack of Specificity: The allegations in the FIR were omnibus and vague, with no details regarding the dates, times, or specific acts of alleged harassment or dowry demands.
4. Abuse of Process: The proceedings were an abuse of legal process aimed at pressurizing the appellants.
5. Precedents in Favor: The appellants relied on several Supreme Court judgments that laid down principles for quashing frivolous FIRs.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Cognizable Offenses Alleged: The FIR disclosed cognizable offenses, and the chargesheet was based on the evidence collected during the investigation.
2. Limited Scope of Quashing: The High Court correctly dismissed the petition under Section 482 CrPC, as disputed questions of fact cannot be examined at the stage of quashing.
3. Precedent Distinctions: The respondent distinguished the precedents cited by the appellants, arguing that they were inapplicable to the facts of the case.

Analysis of the Law

1. High Court’s Duty in Quashing Petitions:
   • The Court reiterated the duty of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to carefully scrutinize the FIR and surrounding circumstances, particularly when allegations are vague or appear to be motivated by personal vendetta.
   • The High Court, in this case, performed only a cursory examination of the allegations and failed to justify its finding that the FIR disclosed cognizable offenses.
2. Application of Judicial Precedents:
   • The Court relied on cases like Iqbal alias Bala v. State of UP and Monica Kumar v. State of UP, emphasizing that FIRs must disclose clear and specific allegations to avoid misuse of criminal law.
   • In cases where allegations are vague or unsupported by evidence, the courts have quashed proceedings to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
3. Role of Omnibus Allegations:
   • The Court highlighted that the FIR contained general allegations with no specific details of harassment or dowry demands, rendering it insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings.

Precedent Analysis

1. Iqbal alias Bala v. State of UP:
   • The Court observed that FIRs lacking details such as the date and time of the alleged offenses must be scrutinized carefully to avoid misuse of criminal law.
   • The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the overall circumstances leading to the filing of the FIR.
2. Monica Kumar v. State of UP:
   • The Court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only when necessary to prevent abuse of process.
3. Mala Kar v. State of Uttarakhand:
   • The Court quashed proceedings in a case where the FIR was filed after a divorce decree, finding that the allegations were frivolous and intended to harass.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Timing of the FIR: The FIR was filed two months after the husband initiated divorce proceedings, suggesting that it was motivated by personal vendetta.
2. Weakness of the FIR: The FIR did not include specific allegations or details, such as the date and time of the alleged offenses. The charges under Section 376 IPC were dropped, and no protest petition was filed against their exclusion.
3. Vexatious Nature of Proceedings: The Court found that the allegations were of a general and omnibus nature, lacking credibility or substance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and chargesheet, stating:

“The FIR is vexatious and seems to be instituted with an ulterior motive only because the husband preferred a divorce petition on 17.06.2021.”

The appeal was allowed, and all criminal proceedings against the appellants were set aside.

Implications

1. Protection from Vexatious Litigation: The judgment underscores the responsibility of courts to protect individuals from frivolous and malicious litigation.
2. Deterrence Against Abuse of Law: The decision sends a strong message that criminal law should not be misused to settle personal scores or exert undue pressure.
3. Guidelines for Quashing Petitions: The judgment reinforces the principles for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, particularly in cases involving vague or motivated allegations.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal: “Consent and Participation in Arbitration Preclude Retrospective Jurisdictional Objections,” Upholds Arbitral Award and Emphasizes Timely Objections Under Section 12(5) of Arbitration Act