Chargesheet Simply Reproduces Wordings Of Complaint; Vague & Unclear Allegations: SC Quashes FIR U/s 498A IPC Against In-Laws

The Court stayed the criminal proceedings against four family members (appellants) in a case involving allegations of cruelty, physical assault, threats, and a dowry demand. The Court noted the tendency to make general, vague, and omnibus allegations in the cases of matrimonial disputes.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed, “The chargesheet is on record and we have examined it carefully, it simply reproduces all the wordings of the complaint. There is nothing new even after investigation, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint are exactly the allegations in the charge sheet. Even otherwise, the position of law is well entrenched. There is no prohibition against quashing of the criminal proceedings even after the charge sheet has been filed.”

Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sidharth Luthra and S. Niranjan Reddy represented the appellants, while Senior Advocate Sanjeev Despande appeared for the respondents.

The wife (complainant) registered an FIR under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506, read with Section 34 of the IPC. The chargesheet was subsequently filed. The complainant alleged that at the time of her marriage, her father gave dowry, including a Scorpio car, gold, silver, and other items, which the family allegedly withheld. She also submitted that after the birth of her daughter, the appellants threatened to deprive her of her share in the property. Further allegations included the disruption of her daughter’s education by her stepbrother-in-law and threats from the family Munim.

The appellants filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR and the chargesheet. They argued that the complaint was vague and general. They also contended that the FIR was an extension of an existing civil dispute regarding family property between the complainant’s husband and his father.

The Supreme Court noted, “The FIR in this case is rather unique, in as much as the complainant has chosen not to involve her husband in the criminal proceedings, particularly when all the allegations relate to demand of dowry. It appears that the complainant and her husband have distributed amongst themselves, the institution of civil and criminal proceedings against the appellants.”

The Court stated that the FIR was replete with just one theme that the appellants were threatening the complainant and her husband that the appellants would deny a share them in the property. “It is impossible to conceive of any offence on the basis of such vague and unclear allegations,” the Court remarked.

The Bench further stated that the domestic violence case was instituted with a mala fide intention only to harass the appellants.

Consequently, the Court observed, “We are not referring to all the findings of the Court dismissing the domestic violence complaint. It is sufficient to note that identical allegations were examined in detail, subjected to strict scrutiny, and rejected as being false and untenable. This case is yet another instance of abuse of criminal process and it would not be fair and just to subject the appellants to the entire criminal law process.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 737)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sidharth Luthra and S. Niranjan Reddy; Advocates Shally Bhasin, Prateek Gupta, Prateek Yadav, Jyotsna Punshi, Jay Kansara, Chiranjivi Sharma and Vasu Gupta; AOR S.S. Shroff and Pranaya Goyal

Respondents: Senior Advocate Sanjeev Despande; Advocates Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, S. Lakshmi Iyer, Victor Das and Shashwat Singh; AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande and E.C. Agrawala

Click here to read/download the Judgment