Vague and Omnibus Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes are Abuse of Process of Law: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court quashes a criminal proceedings against in-laws and set aside the order of the Allahbad High Court against the sister in law and parents in law on the ground of significant delay in reporting dowry harassment and high probablity of personal vendetta.

Background: The matter is stemmed from a matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband, and after over six years of marriage, the complainant lodged an FIR in November 2023, invoking Sections 498A (cruelty), 323 (hurt), and 313 (miscarriage) of the IPC, alongside the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations were not only against the husband but also at against husband's sister (a professor living separately) and husband's elderly parents.

The complainant alleged frequent dowry demands of ₹8.5 lakhs and a car, an incident of forced miscarriage during the marriage, about 6 years before the complaint, and an instance of inappropriate conduct by her father-in-law. When a quash petitioner was filed before the Allahabad High Court, it had declined to quash the FIR, observing that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences.

The appellants then approached Supreme Court seeking the quashment of the proceedings on the grounds that the allegations were concocted, belated, and a blatant abuse of the legal process.

The Supreme Court, relied upon its earlier judgment in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and took a note of the fetal and unexplained delay (of more than six years) in filing of FIR and invoked the "Maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt— The law protects those who are vigilant about their rights" doctorine and held that such a protracted delay in a matrimonial case is often fatal to the prosecution's story.

The Apex Court fruther observed that the High Court failed to notice that the allegations lacked evidentiary backing and were made with a "mala fide" intent for "wreaking vengeance" and observed that "generalised and sweeping accusations" which are not supported by concrete evidence cannot form the basis of a criminal prosecution and should be "nipped in the bud".

On the grave charge of causing a miscarriage (Section 313 IPC), the Apex Court noted that the police had already dropped this charge in the final report due to a total lack of medical evidence or injury reports to substantiate the claim and as far as the allegations of sexual misconduct under Section 354 IPC against the 73-year-old father-in-law, the Apex Court found it to be "bald statements" without any specific detail or "obscene acts" being described.

Thus, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed the FIR and subsequent criminal case specifically against the sister-in-law and the parents-in-law and concluded that the ingredients of the invoked sections were not fulfilled and that allowing the trial to continue would be an exercise in futility.

CORAM: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.