Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Matrimonial Dowry FIR Against Father‑in‑Law After Divorce

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan heard an appeal against a High Court order that had declined to quash an FIR registered in Jabalpur under Sections 498A and 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appeal arose from Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10817 of 2024 and challenged the continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant, the father‑in‑law of the complainant.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated 07.05.2024 in part, and invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash FIR No.58 of 2019 and the subsequent charge sheet dated 18.08.2019 insofar as they related to the appellant. The Court noted that the FIR was “highly belated and is not free from doubt,” observed that the principal matrimonial relationship had been legally dissolved, and held that continuing prosecution against the father‑in‑law would serve no legitimate purpose. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In the considered opinion of this Court, the power under Article 142 must be invoked to advance the cause of complete justice in matters of this nature. Once the marital relationship has ended in divorce and the parties have moved on with their lives, the continuation of criminal proceedings against family members, especially in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose. It only prolongs bitterness and burdens the criminal justice system with disputes that are no longer live. The law must be applied in a manner that balances the need to address genuine grievances with the equally important duty to prevent its misuse. In appropriate cases, the power to quash such proceedings is essential to uphold fairness and bring about a quietus to personal disputes that have run their course. In this regard, we follow the abovesaid dicta.”

Background The dispute arose after the complainant (respondent No.2) married the appellant’s son under the Special Marriage Act on 23.12.2017. She left the matrimonial home on 15.05.2019 alleging mental and physical cruelty. Two counselling sessions were held at the Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur on 26.05.2019 and 02.06.2019, at which the parties agreed to remarry by Hindu rites within two months. The complainant later lodged FIR No.58 of 2019 on 21.07.2019, alleging dowry demands (initially Rs.5 lakhs, later increased to Rs.10 lakhs), seizure of her mobile phone, harassment, and a specific incident where the appellant allegedly slapped her at Jabalpur Railway Station on 02.06.2019. A chargesheet followed on 18.08.2019.

The accused, including the appellant and his son, sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court quashed proceedings against the mother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law for lack of specific allegations but refused relief to the appellant and his son on the ground that specific allegations were made against them. The appellant appealed to this Court. It was brought to the Court’s notice that the Family Court at Bhubaneswar had granted a decree of divorce between the appellant’s son and the complainant on 24.08.2021, which had attained finality. Further proceedings in the criminal court had been stayed by this Court on 02.05.2025.

Relying on precedents that discouraged unnecessary roping‑in of family members in matrimonial disputes and on earlier rulings where this Court had quashed criminal proceedings post‑divorce to prevent misuse of criminal law (including Dara Lakshmi Narayana, Mala Kar, Arun Jain and others cited in the judgment), the Court concluded that, in the absence of proximate and specific allegations and given the finality of the divorce, continued prosecution of the father‑in‑law would be futile and oppressive. To do complete justice between the parties, the Court exercised its constitutional power and quashed the FIR and the charge sheet against the appellant.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10817 of 2024); Citation: 2025 INSC 962 Case Title: Mange Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the reported judgment text For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the reported judgment text