2025 INSC 1168
Crl. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.12584/2024 Page 1 of 10
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO……………OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.12584 OF 2024)
SANJAY D. JAIN & ORS. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law
and sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent - the complainant are
aggrieved by the rejection of their application seeking quashing
of the First Information Report (for short, “the FIR”) lodged
against them for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 377 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the Penal Code”).
Crl. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.12584/2024 Page 2 of 10
3. Facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that the
son of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and brother of appellant No.3 –
Piyush was married with the complainant on 14.07.2021. It is
the case of the complainant that when the marriage was
solemnised, her family had given various gifts to the family of
her husband. After marriage, the demand for further gifts was
made by the family of the husband from time to time. When the
complainant had visited her parental house after the marriage,
she had carried with her number of gifts for being given to the
family members of her husband. This, however, did not satisfy
the appellants and their demand for further gifts/dowry
continued from time to time. It is also the case of the
complainant that her husband insisted upon her to engage in
unnatural sex, which resulted in causing her mental torture.
Ultimately on 06.02.2022, First Information Report No.20 of
2022 was registered at Bajaj Nagar Police Station, Nagpur
under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.
Subsequently, an offence under Sections 377 and 506 of the
Penal Code was also added. On completion of further
investigation and after recording statements of the complainant
Crl. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.12584/2024 Page 3 of 10
and witnesses, the final report came to be filed in the said
proceedings.
4. The appellants as well as the complainant’s husband filed
an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, (for short, “the Code”) praying for quashing of
the criminal proceedings filed against them. The High Court
after considering the submissions of parties found that there
was prima facie material on record to proceed with the trial and
that the prosecution as initiated did not deserve to be stifled.
The High Court, therefore, dismissed the application filed under
Section 482 of the Code.
5. Being aggrieved, the accused except the husband of the
complainant have filed the present proceedings, raising a
challenge to the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in
Criminal Application No.741 of 2022.
6. Mr. Kartik Shukul, learned Advocate along with
Mr. Anurag Gharote, learned Advocate for the appellants
submitted that on a complete reading of the FIR, it was clear
that no offence under Sections 498-A, 377 and 506 read with
Crl. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.12584/2024 Page 4 of 10
Section 34 of the Penal Code had been made out against the
appellants. The ingredients necessary for invoking the said
provisions were absent in the FIR and hence, no offence could
have been registered against the appellants. The allegations as
made were entirely vague in nature and in the absence of any
details whatsoever it could not be said that even a prima facie
case had been made out for proceeding with the trial. Placing
reliance on the judgment of this Court in Digambar and
Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another1
, it was
submitted that even if statements made in the FIR were taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no prima facie
case for proceeding against the accused had been made out.
The High Court, therefore, erred in refusing to quash the
proceedings qua the appellants.
As regards the registration of offence punishable under
Sections 377 and 506 of the Penal Code are concerned, it was
submitted that no allegations whatsoever in that regard had
been made against the appellants. This was clear from a
complete reading of the FIR. Notwithstanding this position, the
1 2024 INSC 1019
Crl. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.12584/2024 Page 5 of 10
High Court erred in not quashing the proceedings even as
regards Sections 377 and 506 of the Penal Code. It was, thus,
submitted that continuation of the criminal proceedings against
the appellants would amount to an abuse of the process of law
and, therefore, the same ought to be quashed insofar as the
appellants were concerned.
7. Per contra, Mr. Adarsh Dubey, learned Advocate
appearing for the State of Maharashtra and Mr. Sachin Patil,
learned Advocate appearing for the complainant supported the
impugned order. It was submitted that at this stage the Court
ought to consider the complaint in its entirety. On the perusal of
the entire complaint, it was clear that an offence under Section
498-A had been clearly made out against the appellants. The
complainant had clearly stated that there was a consistent
demand by the appellants for gifts and other items towards
dowry from the complainant and her family. The items
demanded had been mentioned in the complaint and other
better particulars could be brought on record as evidence. Thus,
taking an overall view of the matter and on perusing the
complaint in its entirety, the High Court was justified in refusing
Crl. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.12584/2024 Page 6 of 10
to quash the proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code. It would be open for the appellants to
defend the proceedings during the trial and seek acquittal
therein. It was, thus, submitted that no case for interference by
this Court had been made out.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the FIR dated 06.02.2022 as well as the final
report, we are of the considered opinion that the criminal
proceedings initiated against the appellants pursuant to the
registration of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 377
and 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code deserve to be
quashed.
9. Before examining the FIR along with the complaint of the
complainant, we may refer to the parameters that are to be
borne in mind while entertaining the prayer for quashing of the
FIR. If the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even
when taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case
against the accused, quashing of the proceedings would be
justified. Vague and general allegations cannot lead to forming
Crl. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.12584/2024 Page 7 of 10
of a prima facie case. As regards the ingredients for making out
an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code
is concerned, the requirement is that there has to be cruelty
inflicted against the victim which either drives her to commit
suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such conduct
that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.
The latter part of the provision refers to harassment with a view
to satisfy an unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security raised by the husband or his relatives. These aspects
have been considered in detail in a recent decision in Digambar
and Another (supra) (to which one of us, B.R. Gavai, J, as he
then was, was a party).
10. A perusal of the FIR and its consideration in entirety
indicates that statements of a general nature have been made
therein as against the present appellants. The complainant
states that on 07.08.2021 when she had gone to her parental
house, she had received a call from her mother-in-law raising a
demand for clothes and jewellery. When she returned to her
matrimonial house on 30.08.2021, she had taken few clothes
for the family members. Except this statement, all other
Crl. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.12584/2024 Page 8 of 10
statements are of a general nature as well as vague without any
particulars. There are other omnibus statements made in the
complaint without any particulars whatsoever. It is also to be
noted that for the purpose of constituting an offence punishable
under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, cruelty as indicated in
the Explanation to the said provision must be stated to be
inflicted. The cruelty caused by the husband and his family
members should be of such nature that it is inflicted with the
intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit
suicide or inflict grave injury to herself. Such allegations are
absent in the present case. We do not find that on a complete
reading of the complaint, a prima facie case for proceeding
under Section 498-A of the Penal Code has been made out
against the appellants.
11. As regards the offence punishable under Sections 377
and 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code is concerned,
it is seen that the allegations in this regard have been made
only against the complainant’s husband and not against the
present appellants. The entire tenor of the complaint in that
regard seeks to implicate the complainant’s husband and all
Crl. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.12584/2024 Page 9 of 10
incidents stated therein relate to him. There is no allegation
whatsoever in that context against the appellants that would
require them to face trial on that count. The proceedings insofar
as the present appellants are concerned, thus, deserve to be
quashed in their entirety. In our view, the High Court failed to
notice this aspect of the matter while declining to quash the
proceedings against the appellants.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, we are satisfied that on the
touchstone of the law laid down in State of Haryana and
Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others2
, a case has been made
out by the appellants for quashing of the criminal proceedings
lodged against them under Sections 498-A, 377 and 506 read
with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Continuation of these
proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law
and, hence, the appellants are entitled to relief.
13. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
(i) FIR No.20 of 2022 leading to the final report under
Section 173 of the Code as lodged against the
appellants under Sections 498-A, 377 and 506 read
2 1990 INSC 363
Crl. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.12584/2024 Page 10 of 10
with Section 34 of the Penal Code is quashed to that
extent.
(ii) It is clarified that this adjudication shall not come in
the way of the respondents in the proceedings
initiated against the accused No.1 - husband under
Sections 498-A, 377 and 506 of the Penal Code.
Observations made herein are restricted to the
present appellants. The proceedings against the
accused No.1 shall be adjudicated on their own
merits.
(iii) The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
..………………………..CJI.
[B.R. GAVAI]
…..………………………..J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
…..………………………..J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
NEW DELHI,
SEPTEMBER 26, 2025.
