SUSHILA & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

                 [2025] 5 S.C.R. 161 : 2025 INSC 505

                              Sushila & Ors.
                                     v.
                            State of U.P. & Ors.
                     Criminal Appeal No. 2020 of 2025
                                 16 April 2025
           [Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether High Court correctly disposed of the prayer for quashing
       of the summoning order issued by the Trial Court in Complaint
       Case u/ss.498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 and s.4
       of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 without deciding the quashing
       petition on merits.

                                   Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 323, 504, 506 – Dowry Prohibition
       Act, 1961 – s.4 – K is the husband of respondent no.2 and
       appellants herein are relatives of K – Matrimonial dispute arose
       between K and respondent no.2 – K filed for divorce – Ex-
       parte divorce decree was passed by the Family Court – After
       3 years from the passing of the divorce decree, respondent
       no.2 filed complaint u/s.156(3) CrPC – Pursuant thereto,
       Magistrate issued summons against the appellants u/s.498A
       IPC – Appellants filed petition u/s.482 CrPC for quashing
       of summoning order before the High Court which was
       dismissed – Correctness:
       Held: Admittedly, the marriage has already been dissolved by
       a decree of divorce passed on 31.05.2012 and the present
       complaint was filed after three years of divorce – Except for the
       bald statement against the appellants, the other allegations are
       against the husband – There is absolutely no reason or justification
       as to why the appellants would try for a reconciliation by visiting
       the house of the complainant on 16.08.2015 when the divorce
       has already taken place by order dated 31.05.2012 – As a
       matter of fact, the complaint is largely devoted to the ill-treatment
       committed by the husband and the only reference to the appellants
       is made for the incident dated 16.08.2015 at her own house at
       NOIDA – However, by that time, the ex-parte decree of divorce
* Author
162                                                             [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       had already been passed – Having examined the allegations in
       the present case, there is no hesitation in holding that the present
       appellants have unnecessarily been roped in the complaint without
       there being any specific allegation against them for any incident
       which had taken place between the husband and the wife during
       subsistence of marriage – This Court is of the considered view
       that allowing the trial to proceed against the appellants shall
       amount to vexatious trial only for the reason that they are relatives
       of the husband – Accordingly, the Complaint Case against the
       appellants is hereby quashed. [Paras 9, 12]

                                Case Law Cited
       Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [2012] 9
       SCR 641 : (2012) 10 SCC 741; Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v.
       State of Telangana & Anr. 2024 INSC 953 : [2024] 12 SCR 559 –
       relied on.

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

                               List of Keywords
       Quashing of the summoning order; Matrimonial dispute;
       ex-parte divorce decree; Complaint case; Demand of dowry; Cruelty
       against wife; Absence of specific allegations.

                              Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       2020 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2018 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Allahabad in A482 No. 41796 of 2018

                           Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellants:
       Bibek Tripathi, Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Ms. Maitri Goal, P. V.
       Yogeswaran.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Ajay Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv, Vikash Bansal, Garvesh Kabra.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                          163

                    Sushila & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.


                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment

       Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

       Leave granted.
2.     Under the impugned order, the High Court has disposed of the
       appellants’ prayer for quashing of the summoning order dated
       23.04.2018 issued by the Trial Court in Complaint Case No. 2789
       of 2015 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Pernal
       Code, 18601 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 without
       deciding the quashing petition on merits.
3.     Kumar Saurabh is the husband of respondent no. 2 (Smt. Charusmita)
       and the appellants are the relatives of Kumar Saurabh. The appellant
       no.1 - Sushila is the mother, appellant no. 2- Shailendra Dablu is the
       elder brother, appellant no. 3- Seema is the sister-in-law, appellant
       no. 4- Kulshreshtha Upadhyay is the elder brother and appellant
       no. 5 – Kanak is the sister of Kumar Saurabh. Kumar Saurabh and
       respondent no. 2 (Smt. Charusmita) were married on 17.06.2010.
       After the marriage, they lived in Kota (Rajasthan) for a brief period
       before she left the matrimonial home in October, 2010 taking away all
       her possessions including stridhan and started living with her parents.
4.     It is the case of the appellants that effort made by Kumar Saurabh
       to bring back respondent no. 2 to resume matrimonial life was not
       successful, compelling him to prefer a divorce petition in the court
       of Family Judge, Kota, Rajasthan bearing Case No. 476 of 2011.
       Respondent no. 2 failed to appear before the Family Court despite
       receiving notice resulting in an ex-parte divorce decree dated
       31.05.2012 passed by the Family Court, Kota. After about 03 years
       from the date of passing of the divorce decree, respondent no. 2
       moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief
       Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar for registration of a criminal
       case and making investigation. The said application was treated as
       a complaint case wherein after recording statement of respondent
       no. 2 and other witnesses, the learned Magistrate issued summoning
       order on 23.04.2018 against the appellants under Section 498A IPC.


1    ‘IPC’
164                                                          [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


5.     Being aggrieved, the appellants approached the High Court by filing
       a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the summoning
       order which was dismissed vide impugned order.
6.     It is argued that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against
       the appellants without there being any specific allegation against any
       one of them and only bald statement has been made against the
       appellants stating that they are also involved in harassing respondent
       no. 2 by demanding dowry.
7.     Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the
       impugned order on submission that the appellants being relatives of
       the husband were also involved in illtreating respondent no. 2 and
       the truth will emerge during trial. According to him, the present is
       not a fit case for quashing the complaint at the threshold.
8.     A reading of the complaint (Annexure P-2) would reveal that the
       marriage took place on 17.06.2010 and the couple stayed at Varanasi
       for five days and proceeded to live in Kota on and from 22.06.2010
       where they lived for most of the time. The complainant returned from
       Kota in October, 2010 and thereafter, it is said that on 16.08.2015
       the appellants came to her house at Kota and demanded dowry by
       threatening and illtreating her. It is also alleged that they snatched
       her Mangalsutra and ran away.
9.     Admittedly, the marriage has already been dissolved by a decree of
       divorce passed on 31.05.2012 and the present complaint was filed
       after three years of divorce. Except for the bald statement against
       the appellants, the other allegations are against the husband. There
       is absolutely no reason or justification as to why the appellants would
       try for a reconciliation by visiting the house of the complainant on
       16.08.2015 when the divorce has already taken place by order dated
       31.05.2012. Even if such an incident has happened on 16.08.2015,
       the fact remains that on the said date the relationship of husband
       and wife has already come to an end as such the appellants being
       relatives of the husband cannot be proceeded for offence under
       Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
10. This Court in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of
    Uttar Pradesh & Anr.2 has deprecated the practice of involving the


2    (2012) 10 SCC 741
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                           165

                      Sushila & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.


     relatives of the husband for the offence under Section 498A IPC and
     Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The following has been
     held in para 18:
            “18. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh
            case [(2005) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 735] had been
            pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against
            the sister-in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest
            the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the
            husband’s relatives as possible. It was held that neither
            the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for
            the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged
            against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased
            to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the
            contents of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged offences
            under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
            Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of
            the complainant’s husband who was undisputedly not
            living with the family of the complainant›s husband. Their
            Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that
            the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister-in-law
            to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against
            the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed.”
11. In a recent judgment in the matter of Dara Lakshmi Narayana &
    Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr.,3 this Court has again reiterated
    and deprecated the practice of involving the relatives of the husband
    in dowry related matters. The following has been held in paras 24,
    25, 28, 30, 31 & 32:
            “24. Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we
            find that they have no connection to the matter at hand
            and have been dragged into the web of crime without any
            rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that
            no substantial and specific allegations have been made
            against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they
            used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry.
            It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the
            couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and
            their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at


3   2024 INSC 953 : [2024] 12 SCR 559
166                                                       [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


       Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos.4 to 6 live in
       Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively.
       25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a
       criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without
       specific allegations indicating their active involvement
       should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact,
       borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a
       tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s
       family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial
       discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations
       unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised
       allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.
       Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent
       misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid
       unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.
       In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the
       members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living
       in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial
       house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein.
       Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution
       and the same would be an abuse of the process of the
       law in the absence of specific allegations made against
       each of them.
       28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of
       an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on
       a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift
       intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there
       have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across
       the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension
       within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has
       been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section
       498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta
       against the husband and his family by a wife. Making
       vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial
       conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal
       processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting
       tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse
       is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the
       husband and his family in order to seek compliance with
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                          167

                    Sushila & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.


           the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this
           Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting
           the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima
           facie case against them.
           30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V.
           Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows:
                “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial
                disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred
                ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable
                the young couple to settle 572 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
                Digital Supreme Court Reports down in life and
                live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
                suddenly erupt which often assume serious
                proportions resulting in commission of heinous
                crimes in which elders of the family are also
                involved with the result that those who could have
                counselled and brought about rapprochement
                are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as
                accused in the criminal case. There are many
                other reasons which need not be mentioned
                here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so
                that the parties may ponder over their defaults
                and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual
                agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of
                law where it takes years and years to conclude
                and in that process the parties lose their “young”
                days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.”
           31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of
           Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have
           to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with
           these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into
           consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
           allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives
           who had been living in different cities and never visited
           or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided
           would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations
           of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great
           care and circumspection.
168                                                            [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


               32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned
               FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated
               with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges
               against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e.,
               appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at
               hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters
               highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the
               present case, erred in not exercising the powers available
               to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent
               abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal
               prosecution against the appellants.”
12. Having examined the allegations in the present case vis-à-vis the
    law settled by this Court in Geeta Mehrotra (supra) & Dara Lakshmi
    Narayana (supra), we have no hesitation in holding that the present
    appellants have unnecessarily been roped in the complaint without
    there being any specific allegation against them for any incident
    which had taken place between the husband and the wife during
    subsistence of marriage and the period when they stayed together
    at Kota. As a matter of fact, the complaint is largely devoted to the
    ill-treatment committed by the husband and the only reference to
    the appellants is made for the incident dated 16.08.2015 at her
    own house at NOIDA. However, by that time, the ex-parte decree
    of divorce has already been passed. In such view of the matter, we
    are of the considered view that allowing the trial to proceed against
    the appellants shall amount to vexatious trial only for the reason
    that they are relatives of the husband. Accordingly, we quash the
    Complaint Case No. 2789 of 2015 against the appellants. The appeal
    stands allowed.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan