Summary

Suman Mishra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 INSC 203
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, J. & Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate

HEADNOTES

1. Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Abuse of Process of Law

• Held: FIRs filed as a counterblast to matrimonial disputes, with vague or unsubstantiated allegations, amount to abuse of process and must be quashed.

2. Dowry Harassment – Requirement of Specific Allegations

• Held: Allegations under Section 498A IPC must be specific and supported by evidence. General or omnibus allegations against family members without clear details are insufficient to sustain prosecution.

3. Allegation of Rape – Judicial Scrutiny of False Charges

• Held: Charges of rape (Section 376 IPC) must be examined critically to prevent misuse in personal disputes. If an FIR initially includes rape allegations but no charge-sheet is filed for the same, courts should scrutinize ulterior motives behind the FIR.

4. Judicial Review – High Court’s Duty to Assess Allegations

• Held: High Courts, when dealing with Section 482 CrPC petitions, must assess whether the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offense and whether it has been filed with a malicious intent.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

• Appellant No. 3 (Rishal Kumar) and Respondent No. 2 (Priyanka Mishra) were married on 05.03.2016 as per Hindu rites in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh.

• Due to marital discord, Rishal Kumar filed for divorce on 17.06.2021 before the Family Court, Bareilly.

• Two months later, on 19.08.2021, Priyanka Mishra lodged an FIR under Sections 498A, 354, 328, 376, 352, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, accusing her husband and in-laws of dowry harassment and sexual assault.

• The initial investigation led to a charge-sheet under Sections 498A, 506, 504 IPC, and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but no charge-sheet was filed for Section 376 IPC (rape).

• Priyanka Mishra did not file a protest petition against the dropping of the rape charge.

• The appellants approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the charge-sheet, arguing that the FIR was a counterblast to the divorce petition.

• The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offense.

• The appellants challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.

LEGAL ISSUES

1. Was the FIR filed as a counterblast to the divorce petition?

2. Did the FIR contain specific allegations justifying prosecution under Sections 498A, 506, 504 IPC?

3. Can an FIR be quashed if a key charge (e.g., Section 376 IPC) is dropped during investigation?

4. Did the High Court err in dismissing the quashing petition without analyzing the nature of allegations?

COURT’S ANALYSIS

1. FIR Was a Counterblast to the Divorce Petition

• The Court noted that the FIR was lodged two months after the husband filed for divorce, indicating a possible retaliatory intent.

• The timing of the FIR and lack of prior complaints raised doubts about the genuineness of allegations.

• The Court cited Iqbal alias Bala v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 8 SCC 734, which held that courts must carefully scrutinize FIRs filed in matrimonial disputes.

2. Vague & Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain 498A Charges

• The FIR contained general allegations against all family members but lacked specific instances of cruelty or dowry harassment.

• The Court cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, which mandates strict scrutiny of 498A cases to prevent misuse.

3. Dropping of Rape Charge Undermines Credibility of FIR

• The investigation dropped the rape charge (Section 376 IPC) due to lack of evidence, and Priyanka Mishra did not contest this decision.

• The Court held that false allegations of serious offenses like rape indicate malicious prosecution, citing State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335.

4. High Court Erred in Dismissing Quashing Petition Without Proper Examination

• The Supreme Court criticized the Allahabad High Court for failing to analyze whether the FIR was filed with an ulterior motive.

• The Court reiterated that quashing under Section 482 CrPC is justified when allegations are vague, retaliatory, or lack legal basis.

CONCLUSION & FINAL ORDER

1. The Supreme Court quashed FIR No. 733/2021 and Charge-Sheet dated 02.02.2022, holding that the FIR was retaliatory and lacked specific allegations.

2. The case against all appellants was dismissed as a misuse of criminal law.

3. The Court reaffirmed that FIRs in matrimonial disputes must be examined cautiously to prevent abuse of process.

Final Disposition: Appeal Allowed, FIR & Charge-Sheet Quashed

This judgment strengthens safeguards against false and retaliatory FIRs in matrimonial disputes, emphasizing that courts must carefully assess the nature and intent of such complaints.