Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Charge‑Sheet as Vexatious Where Divorce Petition Predated Criminal Complaint

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma heard an appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s dismissal of a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 733/2021 and the charge‑sheet dated 02.02.2022 arising from allegations under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appeal arose from SLP (Crl.) No. 9218 of 2024 and the Court had earlier granted interim protection staying trial proceedings.

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed FIR No. 733/2021 and the charge‑sheet dated 02.02.2022, holding that, in the peculiar facts of the case, the criminal proceedings were “vexatious” and appeared to be instituted with an ulterior motive. The bench noted that the High Court had undertaken only a cursory analysis and had erred in refusing to consider the overall circumstances surrounding registration of the FIR. The Supreme Court cited the High Court’s own operative finding that “the allegations made in the First Information Report disclose the commission of a cognizable offense” but observed that the High Court gave no reasons and merely stated that “the disputed version of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Considering the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgments, and especially in the light of the fact that initially the FIR was lodged alleging rape and no charge-sheet was filed for prosecuting the accused for the offence of rape, and keeping in view of the fact that no protest petition was filed thereafter, this Court is of the considered opinion that 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 i.e. much prior to the filing of the FIR against all the family members. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that 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 appeal is allowed.”

Background The dispute arose after the marriage between Appellant No. 3 and Respondent No. 2 on 05.03.2016. Appellant No. 3 filed a matrimonial suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 17.06.2021. Respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR on 19.08.2021 alleging multiple offences including rape (Section 376 IPC) against several family members. Investigation by two different officers, under supervisory directions, resulted in a final report and charge‑sheet under Sections 498A, 506, 504 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; the offence under Section 376 IPC was not pursued and no protest petition was filed by the complainant against that omission. Subsequently an ex parte decree of divorce was passed in the family court and Appellant No. 3 had remarried.

Appellants challenged the charge‑sheet and cognizance order before the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 CrPC; the High Court dismissed the petition, observing that the FIR disclosed commission of a cognizable offence and that assessment of credibility was unnecessary at that stage. The appellants contended before the Supreme Court that the FIR was a counter‑blast to the divorce petition, contained omnibus and non‑specific allegations, and that the complainant’s Section 164 statement materially deviated from the FIR. They relied on precedents including Iqbal alias Bala v. State of UP, Monica Kumar v. State of UP, Mala Kar v. State of Uttarakhand, Arun Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi and other decisions on the duty of courts when confronted with potentially vexatious criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court reviewed the record, observed that police witnesses’ statements were general and omnibus without specifics such as date or time, and found the timing of the FIR—registered after the divorce petition—and the dropping of the rape charge material to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Applying principles from its earlier decisions, and noting earlier instances where Article 142 was invoked to quash proceedings in comparable facts, the Court concluded that the FIR and resulting charge‑sheet were instituted with an ulterior motive and deserved to be quashed. The appeal was allowed and the challenged FIR and charge‑sheet were quashed; earlier interim stay of trial proceedings had been in place while the matter was taken on notice.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 203 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9218 of 2024) Case Title: Suman Mishra & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Advocate names not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Advocate names not indicated in the judgment]