The Supreme Court held that while exercising jurisdiction to examine the legality of criminal proceedings in quashing matters, courts are not confined to the FIR alone and may also consider contemporaneous pleadings and documents having a bearing on the allegations, before quashing criminal and domestic violence proceedings against the husband’s relatives in a matrimonial dispute.
A Bench of Justices N. Kotiswar Singh and Sanjay Karol allowed appeals filed by Appellant and other relatives of the husband against the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s refusal to quash an FIR registered under Sections 498A/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The Court observed that even where a chargesheet has been filed, the legality and sustainability of criminal proceedings can still be examined. Importantly, it held that in assessing whether continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, the Court may look beyond the FIR and consider other contemporaneous pleadings including matrimonial pleadings to test the consistency and substance of allegations.
Applying this principle, the Bench examined the wife’s divorce pleadings alongside the FIR and DV complaint, and found that the detailed allegations of physical assault, abuse, threats, surveillance, emotional neglect and other acts of cruelty were overwhelmingly directed against the husband. The allegations against his relatives remained broad, collective and lacking specific attribution of overt acts.
The Court noted that the complainant’s own pleadings indicated that she primarily resided with her husband at his government accommodation in Sheopur, thereby weakening the narrative of continuous harassment by relatives residing elsewhere. It found no clear particulars regarding specific dates, incidents, or unlawful acts individually attributable to the appellants.
Holding that criminal law cannot be set in motion against family members merely because of their relationship with the husband or because they allegedly sided with him in a matrimonial dispute, the Court said continuation of proceedings in the absence of specific and legally sustainable allegations would amount to abuse of process.
The Court in para 18 stated that
“…this Court is not confined merely to the FIR in isolation and may also consider other contemporaneous pleadings and documents placed on record having a bearing on the allegations…”
Proceedings against the appellants were accordingly quashed, while liberty was preserved for the complainant to pursue remedies against the husband in accordance with law.
