SUMAN MISHRA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

                 [2025] 2 S.C.R. 534 : 2025 INSC 203

                       Suman Mishra & Ors.
                                  v.
                  The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 731 of 2025)
                              12 February 2025
       [B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court erred in finding that there were specific
       allegations in the FIR and Chargesheet even after dropping the
       charge of Section 376, IPC in order to maintain the criminal
       proceedings against the Appellants and thus, dismissing the
       quashing petition filed by them.

                                  Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing – FIR
       inter alia u/ss.498A, 376, IPC and u/ss.3, 4 of the Dowry
       Prohibition Act, 1961, filed by Respondent No.2-wife against
       the appellants (husband and in-laws), primarily alleging rape
       by her brother-in-law – Charge-sheet filed, charges u/s.376, IPC
       were dropped – Appellants filed quashing petition, dismissed
       by High Court – Correctness:
       Held: Initially, the FIR was lodged alleging rape, however, on
       investigation no charge-sheet was filed for prosecuting the accused
       for rape – No protest petition was filed by Respondent No.2 –
       FIR filed against all the family members about two months after
       the divorce petition was filed by husband, is vexatious and was
       instituted with an ulterior motive only because the husband had
       filed a divorce petition – Allegations against the accused persons
       were general and omnibus – Divorcing the allegations u/s.376 IPC,
       nothing remains in the FIR that was specifically alleged against
       the Appellants – Also, the parties have been granted divorce and
       the husband has also re-married – High Court undertook only a
       cursory analysis of the allegations made in the FIR – It failed to
       underscore any reasons for finding that the allegations made out



* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                          535

       Suman Mishra & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


     the alleged offense – In the peculiar facts and circumstances of
     the case, FIR and chargesheet quashed. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 19]

     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing – Duty
     of High Court – Discussed. [Paras 15-16]

                             Case Law Cited
     Iqbal alias Bala and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
     (2023) 8 SCC 734; Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another v. State of
     Uttar Pradesh and Others [2008] 9 SCR 943 : (2008) 8 SCC 781;
     Mala Kar and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Another, 2024
     SCC Online SC 1049; Arun Jain and Others v. State of NCT of
     Delhi and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1638 – relied on.
     P. V. Krishnabhat & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.,
     Crl. Appeal No. 205/2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1754 of
     2024); Ramawtar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 13 SCC 635;
     Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India & Anr. [1998] 2 SCR
     795 : (1998) 4 SCC 409; High Court Bar Association, Allahabad
     v. State of UP & Ors. [2024] 2 SCR 946; Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun
     Sreenivasan [2023] 5 SCR 165 – referred to.

                               List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Dowry
     Prohibition Act, 1961; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

                            List of Keywords
     Quashing; Dropping off of the charges under Section 376, IPC;
     Non-inclusion of Section 376, IPC in the charge-sheet; No protest
     petition filed; FIR against all the family members; FIR vexatious;
     Ulterior motive; Allegations general and omnibus; Husband re-
     married; Cursory analysis; FIR and the charge-sheet quashed;
     Peculiar facts and circumstances; Decree of divorce; Re-marriage.

                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     731 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2022 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in A482 No. 23358 of 2022
536                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


                          Appearances for Parties
       Ram Lal Roy, Asad Alvi, Advs. for the Appellants.
       Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Puneet Singh Bindra, Ebad Ur Rahman,
       Ms. Sonal Kushwah, Suryaansh Kishan Razdan, Anas Tanwir,
       Advs. for the Respondents.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

       Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

1.     Leave Granted.
2.     The present appeal is arising out of order dated 31.08.2022 passed
       by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an application under
       Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) being
       Application under Section 482 No. 23358 of 2022, whereby the
       High Court has dismissed the quashing application preferred by the
       present Appellants for quashing of the Chargesheet dated 02.02.2022
       and the cognizance order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Court of
       ACJM, Bareilly in FIR No. 733 of 2021 registered under Sections
       498A, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) read with
       section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3.     The facts of the case reveal that marriage between Appellant No.
       3 and Respondent No. 2 Priyanka Mishra was solemnized on
       05.03.2016 as per Hindu rites and customs at Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh.
       The parties started living separately and Appellant No. 3 – Rishal
       Kumar preferred a Matrimonial Case No. 627(597) of 2021 for grant
       of decree of divorce on 17.06.2021 under Section 13 of the Hindu
       Marriage Act, 1955, before the Principal Judge Family Court No. 3
       Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. After the divorce suit was filed, Respondent
       No. 2 - Priyanka Mishra lodged a First Information Report (“FIR”)
       under Section 154 of the CrPC at Police Station Baradari, District
       Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, for the offence punishable under Sections
       498A, 354, 328, 376, 352, 504, 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4
       of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against her husband, brother-in-
       law, mother-in-law and father-in-law. The investigation was conducted
       by Sub Inspector Reeta Tewatia and thereafter as per the directions
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                        537

       Suman Mishra & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


     issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, the investigation
     of the case was transferred from Police Station Baradari to Police
     Station Kotwali, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, and further investigation
     of the case was carried out by the Sub-Inspector posted at Police
     Station Kotwali. After a detailed investigation in the matter, a final
     report was filed under Section 173 of the CrPC and the charge-sheet
     was filed for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 504 of
     the IPC read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
     No charge-sheet was filed in respect of offence punishable under
     Section 376 IPC against the brother-in-law and it is an undisputed
     fact that Respondent No. 2 did not file any protest petition in the
     matter against dropping off of the charges under Section 376 IPC.
4.   The Appellants approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
     being aggrieved by the criminal proceedings initiated against them,
     and preferred a petition under Section 482 CrPC. Vide order dated
     31.08.2022, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed
     the petition under Section 482 of the CrPC (“Impugned Order”).
5.   The present appeal is arising out of the Impugned Order, and this
     Court has granted interim relief in the matter to the effect that
     proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed, while issuing
     notice on 10.07.2024.
6.   Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants has vehemently argued
     before this Court that Appellant No. 3 filed a matrimonial case on
     17.06.2021 and the said FIR was lodged only as a counter blast on
     19.08.2021 in order to harass and humiliate the entire family without
     there being any substance in the allegations in the FIR. It was further
     brought to this Court’s notice that a decree of divorce was passed in
     Matrimonial Case No. 627(597) of 2021, which is an ex parte decree,
     and thereafter the Appellant No. 3 has even re-married. He has
     further argued before this Court that the statement of Complainant/
     Respondent No. 2 was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
     before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh,
     in which she has completely deviated from the allegations made in
     the FIR, and therefore the FIR is false and fabricated. It has been
     further argued before this Court that the FIR does not inspire any
     confidence and there are omnibus allegations against all family
     members in the matter, and in fact it is a sheer abuse of process
     of law on the part of Respondent No. 2 designed only to humiliate
538                                                            [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       and harass the Appellants merely because a divorce petition was
       filed in the matter.
7.     Furthermore, the Appellants have also placed reliance upon the
       judgments delivered by this Court in the cases of Iqbal alias
       Bala and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2023)
       8 Supreme Court Cases 734; Monica Kumar (Dr.) and another
       Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2008) 8 Supreme Court
       Cases 781; Mala Kar and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and
       Another 2024 SCC Online SC 1049; Arun Jain and others Vs.
       State of NCT of Delhi and Another 2024 CC OnLine SC 1638; and
       P. V. Krishnabhat & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. Crl.
       Appeal No. 205/2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1754 of 2024)
       decided on 15.01.2025.
8.     On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.
       2 vehemently argued before this Court that keeping in view of the
       allegations made in the FIR, the charge-sheet filed in the matter and
       the evidence on record, at this junction, the question of quashing the
       charge-sheet does not arise. He has stated that the High Court was
       justified in dismissing the petition preferred under Section 482 of the
       Cr.P.C. as disputed questions could not be looked into by the High
       Court. He has further argued before this Court that scope of interference
       at the stage of filing of charge-sheet is quite limited, and the FIR and
       charge-sheet cannot be quashed as prayed for in the matter.
9.     Additionally, Respondent No. 2 has also sought to distinguish the
       precedents placed on record by the Petitioner, and additionally rely
       upon judgements in Ramawtar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022)
       13 SCC 635; Supreme Court Bar Assn. Vs. Union of India & Anr.
       (1998) 4 SCC 409; High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs.
       State of UP & Ors. Crl. Appeal No. 3589/2023; and Shilpa Sailesh
       Vs. Varun Sreenivasan TP (C.) No. 1118/2014.
10. Learned counsel for the State has also supported the prosecution’s
    case and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
11. This Court has carefully gone through the Impugned Order passed by
    the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, and its operative portion
    reads as under:
            “Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and learned
            Additional Government Advocate and perused the file.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                         539

       Suman Mishra & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


           From a perusal of the file of the case after hearing the
           arguments of the learned counsel for the parties; the Court
           found that the allegations made in the First Information
           Report disclose the commission of a cognizable offense
           and that after due consideration, those allegations
           have been made. By this Court in exercise of its power
           under Section 482 Cr. P. C., there is no need to assess
           the accuracy and credibility of the allegations from the
           material collected during the investigation. The disputed
           version of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
           Accordingly, prayer for cancellation of the charge sheet
           and the proceedings resulting from the above case are
           rejected.”
12. The aforesaid order reveals that the High Court has undertaken
    only a cursory analysis of the allegations made in the FIR. The
    High Court has failed to underscore any reasons for recording its
    finding that the allegations make out the alleged offense. Further,
    there appears to be no basis for the High Court to state that the
    disputed version of the Appellants cannot be considered at the
    stage of quashing.
13. It is a matter of record that the FIR was only registered on 19.08.2021,
    about two months after the divorce petition was registered by Appellant
    No. 3. Upon a perusal of the FIR, it is revealed that the primary
    allegation levelled by Respondent No. 2 is one of rape committed
    by the brother-in-law of Respondent No. 2. After investigation by
    two different investigating officers under the supervision of Senior
    Superintendent of Police, no charge-sheet was filed for the alleged
    offence under Section 376 IPC. It is noteworthy that no protest
    petition has been filed by Respondent No. 2/Complainant protesting
    the non-inclusion of Section 376 IPC in the charge-sheet. Therefore,
    what remains to be examined by this Court is whether the High Court
    has erred in finding that there are specific allegations in the FIR and
    Chargesheet after dropping the charge of Section 376 IPC, in order
    to maintain the criminal proceedings against the Appellants.
14. The statements of the witnesses examined by the police reveal
    that there are allegations against the accused persons of general
    and omnibus nature, and no specific details have been provided.
    Further, divorcing the allegations under Section 376 IPC from the
540                                                            [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       FIR, it appears to this Court that nothing remains in the FIR that is
       specifically alleged against the Appellants. In fact, the FIR contains no
       information in regard to the date or time that the alleged offence took
       place. The other important aspect of the case is that the proceedings
       before the Family Court in Matrimonial Case No. 627(597) of 2021
       have resulted in a decree of divorce and the re-marriage of Appellant
       No.3 has also taken place subsequently.
15. At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to rely on several judicial
    pronouncements delineating the duty of a High Court in deciding
    a quashing petition. In the case of Iqbal alias Bala and others
    (supra), though this Court has declined to quash the FIR, however,
    in paragraphs 6 to 11 this Court has held as under:
            “6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
            parties and having gone through the materials on record,
            the only question that falls for our consideration is whether
            we should quash the FIR?
            7. It is relevant to note that the victim has not furnished
            any information in regard to the date and time of the
            commission of the alleged offence. At the same time,
            we also take notice of the fact that the investigation has
            been completed and charge-sheet is ready to be filed.
            Although the allegations levelled in the FIR do not inspire
            any confidence more particularly in the absence of any
            specific date, time, etc. of the alleged offences, yet we
            are of the view that the appellants should prefer discharge
            application before the trial court under Section 227 of the
            Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We say so because
            even according to the State, the investigation is over and
            charge-sheet is ready to be filed before the competent
            court. In such circumstances, the trial court should be
            allowed to look into the materials which the investigating
            officer might have collected forming part of the charge-
            sheet. If any such discharge application is filed, the trial
            court shall look into the materials and take a call whether
            any case for discharge is made out or not.
            8. At this stage, we express no final opinion as regards
            the truthfulness of the allegations levelled in the FIR.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                            541

       Suman Mishra & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


           9. At this stage, we would like to observe something
           important. Whenever an accused comes before the court
           invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of
           the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
           jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
           FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
           ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
           vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
           vengeance, then in such circumstances the court owes a
           duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
           10. We say so because once the complainant decides
           to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive
           for wreaking personal vengeance, etc. then he would
           ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all
           the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure
           that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such
           that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute
           the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough
           for the court to look into the averments made in the FIR/
           complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether
           the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence
           are disclosed or not.
           11. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes
           a duty to look into many other attending circumstances
           emerging from the record of the case over and above
           the averments and, if need be, with due care and
           circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court
           while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC
           or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself
           only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into
           account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/
           registration of the case as well as the materials collected
           in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case
           on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period
           of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the
           registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby
           attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private
           or personal grudge as alleged.”
542                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


16. Further, this Court in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and another
    (supra), and specifically in paragraph 33, has held as under:
          “33. The parties have exchanged their counter-affidavits
          and rejoinders. Indisputably, there is no quarrel with the
          well-settled principles of law that while exercising powers
          under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court does not function
          as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under
          the section though has to be exercised sparingly, carefully
          and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by
          the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to
          be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial
          justice for the administration of which courts exist. When
          the complaint is sought to be quashed it is permissible
          to look into the materials to assess what the complainant
          has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if
          the allegations are accepted in toto.”
17. This Court in the case of Arun Jain (supra) has also taken a similar
    view, and in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution
    of India, set aside the criminal complaint, FIR and all other criminal
    proceedings. The operative paragraph of the orders passed by this
    Court in the said case reads as under:
          “The Constitution Bench decision in the case of Supreme
          Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India & Anr., (1998) 4 SCC
          409 has eloquently clarified this point as follows:
          “48. The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
          under Article 142 has the power to make such order as
          is necessary for doing complete justice “between the
          parties in any cause or matter pending before it”. The very
          nature of the power must lead the Court to set limits for
          itself within which to exercise those powers and ordinarily
          it cannot disregard a statutory provision governing a
          subject, except perhaps to balance the equities between
          the conflicting claims of the litigating parties by “ironing
          out the creases” in a cause or matter before it. Indeed
          this Court is not a court of restricted jurisdiction of only
          dispute-settling. It is well recognised and established that
          this Court has always been a law-maker and its role travels
          beyond merely dispute-settling. It is a “problem solver in
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                           543

          Suman Mishra & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


             the nebulous areas” (see K. Veeraswami v. Union of India)
             but the substantive statutory provisions 4 dealing with the
             subject matter of a given case cannot be altogether ignored
             by this Court, while making an order under Article 142.
             Indeed, these constitutional powers cannot, in any way,
             be controlled by any statutory provisions but at the same
             time these powers are not meant to be exercised when
             their exercise may come directly in conflict with what has
             been expressly provided for in a statute dealing expressly
             with the subject.”
18. In the case of Mala Kar and Another vs. State of Uttarakhand
    (supra), a decree of divorce was passed between the parties therein
    on 18.10.2014. It was thereafter that on 06.04.2015, an FIR was
    registered in respect of the criminal complaint filed on 09.08.2014.
    More significantly, the parties in the said case had since remarried
    and were leading their independent lives. Therefore, both parties had
    accepted the decree of divorce. In the above circumstances, this
    Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to
    quash the criminal complaint as well as the FIR, and all other criminal
    proceedings commenced thereto by setting aside the impugned order
    passed by the High Court.
19. 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.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey