A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Suman Mishra & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., [2025] 2 S.C.R. 534 : 2025 INSC 203, scrutinised a High Court refusal to quash criminal proceedings initiated after a matrimonial dispute. The FIR (registered 19.08.2021) alleged multiple offences including Section 376, IPC; after investigation the charge under Section 376, IPC was not pressed in the charge-sheet and no protest petition was filed by the complainant. The High Court dismissed the petition under Section 482, CrPC by a cursory order; this Court held that where an FIR appears to be vexatious, omnibus and instituted post-initiation of matrimonial proceedings, the High Court must undertake a careful, contextual appraisal of the record rather than a perfunctory reading.

Applying precedents such as Iqbal alias Bala v. State of U.P. and Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U.P., the Court found that once the principal specific allegation of rape was dropped by investigation and the FIR contained general/omnibus allegations without date/time particulars, the FIR bore indicia of ulterior motive. Given also the subsequent divorce decree and remarriage of the husband, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction and quashed FIR No. 733/2021 and the charge-sheet dated 02.02.2022. Keywords: quashing, Section 376 IPC dropped, omnibus allegations, vexatious FIR, Section 482 CrPC.

Keywords: quashing; Section 376 IPC; omnibus allegations; vexatious FIR; Section 482 CrPC

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal arose from a High Court order rejecting a petition under Section 482, CrPC to quash a charge-sheet and cognizance order in respect of FIR No. 733/2021. The underlying matrimonial context is critical: Appellant No.3 filed a divorce petition on 17.06.2021 and subsequently an FIR was lodged on 19.08.2021 by his estranged wife alleging a catalogue of offences including rape (Section 376, IPC) and offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act. Investigations by two officers (after transfer) culminated in a charge-sheet dated 02.02.2022 omitting Section 376, IPC; the complainant did not file any statutory protest petition when the rape charge was not pursued.

The High Court observed that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and declined to quash, taking the view that credibility or disputed facts were not to be assessed at that stage. The appellants challenged the High Court order before the Supreme Court, urging that the FIR was a counterblast to the matrimonial suit, lodged with ulterior motive and containing only omnibus allegations lacking specifics (no date/time; no particularised acts against each family member).

The Supreme Court was therefore called upon to balance the narrow limits of quashing jurisdiction against the duty to prevent abuse of criminal process where an FIR appears manifestly vexatious. The Court approached precedent that instructs closer scrutiny where the complainant may have ulterior motive, notably when investigations either do not sustain serious allegations or material demonstrates lack of particularity. The marriage had been dissolved by decree and the husband had remarried facts the Court treated as relevant contextual circumstances in deciding whether continuing criminal process served justice.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Marriage between Appellant No.3 (Rishal Kumar) and Respondent No.2 (Priyanka Mishra) took place on 05.03.2016 at Bareilly. Appellant No.3 filed Matrimonial Case No. 627(597) of 2021 seeking divorce under Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act on 17.06.2021. On 19.08.2021, Respondent No.2 lodged FIR No. 733/2021 under multiple sections including Sections 498A, 354, 328, 376, 352, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, naming husband, brother-in-law and parents-in-law. Investigation (conducted initially at Police Station Baradari and later at Police Station Kotwali) produced a final report/charge-sheet dated 02.02.2022 charging under Sections 498A, 506, 504 IPC read with Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act — notably omitting Section 376, IPC.

No protest petition under law was filed by Respondent No.2 against the omission of Section 376. The statements collected during investigation showed general and omnibus allegations without temporal particulars; the primary specific allegation in the FIR (rape by brother-in-law) was not sustained by investigative material. The Family Court proceedings resulted in an ex parte divorce decree and Appellant No.3 subsequently remarried.

Appellants moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings; the High Court dismissed the petition by brief reasoning that the FIR disclosed cognizable offence and that disputed facts could not be examined in quashing jurisdiction. The appeal reached the Supreme Court which granted leave and interim stay and ultimately examined whether the High Court failed its duty to scrutinise the record where the FIR and charge-sheet, viewed without the rape allegation, contained only omnibus assertions and suggested a vexatious counterblast.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the High Court erred in declining to quash the charge-sheet when the primary specific allegation (Section 376, IPC) was not pursued in the charge-sheet?
ii. Whether an FIR lodged after initiation of matrimonial proceedings and consisting largely of omnibus allegations without date/time particulars can be held to be vexatious and quashed under Section 482, CrPC?
iii. What is the scope of inquiry for a High Court when deciding a quashing petition in cases where ulterior motive or abuse of process is suspected?
iv. Whether absence of a protest petition against dropping of a serious charge (here Section 376, IPC) is material to the decision to quash?
v. Whether subsequent decree of divorce and remarriage of the husband are relevant circumstances for exercising extraordinary/quashing jurisdiction?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

• The FIR was a retaliatory counterblast filed after the husband initiated matrimonial proceedings on 17.06.2021, indicating ulterior motive to harass the family.

• The investigative process, supervised and transferred, resulted in no charge-sheet for rape (Section 376, IPC) which demonstrates absence of material supporting the principal specific allegation.

• Statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC deviated from FIR allegations, undermining the prosecution’s case and showing fabrication.

• The FIR contained general and omnibus allegations without particulars (no date/time; no specific act against each accused) and therefore failed the test of particularity required to found a criminal prosecution.

• The High Court erred by failing to apply the settled principle that where FIRs are manifestly frivolous/vexatious and instituted with ulterior motive, the court must read the record with care and circumspection and quash the proceedings. Reliance placed on Iqbal alias Bala, Monica Kumar, Mala Kar, and Arun Jain.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

• The FIR and the charge-sheet disclosed cognizable offences and therefore the High Court was justified in refusing to quash; disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated at the quashing stage.

• The scope of interference under Section 482, CrPC is limited and the trial court is the appropriate forum to examine the materials; the appellants should seek discharge under Section 227, CrPC if they so choose.

• The omission of Section 376, IPC in the charge-sheet does not ipso facto render the FIR vexatious where other serious offences remain; investigation choices fall within police discretion.

• Precedents cited by appellants were distinguishable on facts and did not mandate quashing in the present factual matrix.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — inherent powers of High Court to quash proceedings.
ii. Sections 498A, 504, 506, 376, 354, 352 IPC — offences alleged in FIR.
iii. Sections 3 & 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — alleged dowry-related offences.
iv. Section 164, CrPC — recording of statement before magistrate.
v. Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — matrimonial proceedings antecedent to FIR.
vi. Section 173, CrPC — police final report / charge-sheet.
vii. Principles from precedents: Iqbal alias Bala v. State of U.P.; Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U.P.; Arun Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi.

I) JUDGEMENT

The Court held that the High Court had performed only a cursory analysis of the FIR and failed to explain why the allegations, when examined, disclosed cognizable offences against the appellants. Emphasising judicial precedents, the Court restated that while Section 482 is to be exercised sparingly, where an FIR is shown to be prima facie vexatious or a product of ulterior motive, the High Court must look beyond bare averments.

The Court noted the chronology: divorce petition filed on 17.06.2021; FIR lodged on 19.08.2021; investigation by two officers resulted in omission of the rape charge, and no protest petition was filed. On examining the FIR and statements, the Court found that except for the rape allegation (not sustained), the remaining allegations were omnibus and generalised, lacking date/time particulars or specific overt acts attributable to each accused. The absence of particulars coupled with the non-pursuit of the most serious allegation indicated overtones of vendetta.

The Court relied on Iqbal alias Bala and Monica Kumar to emphasise that in cases with indicia of mala fides the High Court must “read between the lines” and may examine investigative materials. The Court further noted analogous relief granted in Mala Kar where, after divorce and remarriage, criminal proceedings were quashed. Weighing context, the subsequent decree of divorce and husband’s remarriage were treated as relevant equities the continuation of criminal process thereby serving no legitimate public interest.

Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed FIR No. 733/2021 and the charge-sheet dated 02.02.2022 while recording that the decision was confined to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The controlling ratio is that a High Court, while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, must not confine itself to a perfunctory acceptance of FIR averments where circumstances indicate that the complaint is vexatious or instituted with ulterior motive. Where:

(i) the principal specific allegation is not sustained by investigation,

(ii) no protest petition is filed against dropping of a serious charge,

(iii) the FIR contains only general/omnibus allegations lacking particularity (no date/time or specifics), and

(iv) the criminal proceedings are lodged after initiation of matrimonial litigation, the High Court is duty-bound to undertake a careful scrutiny of the record and may quash criminal proceedings if doing so is ex debito justitiae.

The ratio emphasises contextual appraisal over ritualistic refusal to consider disputed facts when mala fides are apparent.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed obiter that the mere omission of a charge by the police does not always mean malafide, yet absence of a protest petition diminishes the complainant’s insistence on the omitted charge and is therefore a relevant fact. The Court reiterated that while trial courts are appropriate forums for contested factual inquiry, where manifest indicators of abuse exist, the High Court should not shrink from deeper examination. The Court further noted that post-divorce remarriage does not automatically nullify criminal culpability but is a relevant circumstance when balancing equities in quashing jurisdiction.

c. GUIDELINES 

i. When a petition under Section 482 alleges the FIR is vexatious, the High Court should examine:

(a) timing of FIR relative to other proceedings,

(b) particularity in averments (date/time/place/acts),

(c) whether investigative material negates principal allegations, and

(d) presence/absence of protest petition where a charge is dropped.

ii. High Courts must read the record with care and may take into account materials collected during investigation when mala fides or omnibus allegations are suspected.

iii. If investigation has concluded and a charge-sheet is filed, appellants should generally be permitted to seek discharge under Section 227, CrPC; nonetheless, quashing is appropriate in exceptional cases where continued prosecution is plainly vexatious.

iv. Quashing orders must be fact-specific and avoid general rules that prevent trial courts from examining credibility in ordinary cases.

v. Subsequent matrimonial outcomes (divorce decree, remarriage) are relevant equities but not decisive; they inform the exercise of inherent jurisdiction where fairness and prevention of abuse are at stake.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision is a cautious reinforcement of the High Court’s duty to prevent abuse of criminal law in matrimonial contexts. It clarifies that Section 482 is not an inimical power to be mechanically withheld whenever allegations are contested; rather, where an FIR displays objective indicia of vexatiousness delayed lodging after initiation of divorce, absence of particulars, non-pursuit of a central allegation by investigating agencies and absence of a protest petition the High Court must engage more than a perfunctory reading.

The Court balanced the twin imperatives of protecting individuals from malicious prosecution and preserving the public interest in prosecuting genuine offences. Practically, the judgment signals to trial and High Courts that contextual and chronological scrutiny is essential in matrimonial-related criminal complaints and that police choices to omit charges coupled with complainant inaction (no protest) can be decisive.

The ruling reaffirms settled precedents while applying them factually to quash proceedings where continuation would be inequitable. The outcome remains narrowly tailored to the facts: the presence of divorce decree and remarriage, the dropped rape charge, and the omnibus nature of allegations collectively justified quashing. This judgment therefore serves as a useful guide for litigants and courts to distinguish between genuine criminal complaints and retaliatory or vexatious prosecutions in matrimonial disputes.

K) REFERENCES 

a) Important Cases Referred

1. Suman Mishra & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., [2025] 2 S.C.R. 534 : 2025 INSC 203.

2. Iqbal alias Bala and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2023) 8 SCC 734.

3. Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 781; [2008] 9 SCR 943.

4. Mala Kar and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Another, 2024 SCC Online SC 1049.

5. Arun Jain and Others v. State of NCT of Delhi and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1638.

6. P. V. Krishnabhat & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors., Crl. Appeal No. 205/2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1754 of 2024).

7. Ramawtar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 13 SCC 635.

8. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr., (1998) 4 SCC 409.

9. High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of UP & Ors., [2024] 2 SCR 946.

10. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, [2023] 5 SCR 165.

b) Important Statutes Referred

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
C. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.