Arti Mehta & Ors. v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 2026 INSC 533
The present case of Supreme Court of India, highlights a matrimonial dispute among husband and wife wherein the whole family of husband became a part of the criminal proceeding. The main legal questions were pertaining to the Section 482, The High Court power of quashing a criminal prosecution, if prima facie the offence is not made and mere abuse of legal proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after ‘CrPC’). In this case of criminal prosecution made out of a matrimonial dispute and implicating whole family of husband, The legal problem in this case was of whether criminal prosecutions against relatives of husband can be entertained in lack of any clear allegations against them, and it can be dismissed by the High Court.
The appeals were preferred on behalf of the husband's relatives including Arti Mehta (sister-in-law), Shrivati Bai Dhakad (mother-in-law), Manisha Dhakad (wife of the brother-in-law) and Vikram Dhakad (Brother-in-Law) who were charged for a criminal complaint arising out as against a common Respondent No. 2. The marriage between the Complainant and Divyaraj Dhakad took place on 19.11.2019. After that on 13.01.2023 the Complainant made FIR No. 41/2023 against her husband and above-mentioned persons for the offenses punishable under Sections 498A, read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1963 (hereinafter ‘DP Act’) due to increasing disputes. The allegation made was that on account of said offenses she had been subjected to physical and mental cruelty as well as demand of dowry. As a consequence, thereof on 04.04.2023 D.V. Complaint No. 1752 of 2023 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter ‘PWDV Act’) was filed by the Complainant. Prior to this, a case was filed by the husband seeking restoration of conjugal rights as provided under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thereafter, a divorce suit was filed by the complainant that resulted in grant of decree of divorce in favour of the complainant while the appeal was pending before the Apex Court. The above-mentioned appellants in the meanwhile filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior challenging FIR No. 41/2023 and D.V. Complaint No. 1752 of 2023 lodged against them. They pleaded for dismissal of the FIR on the ground of vagueness, ambiguity and mala fide intentions on the part of the Complainant. These petitions were dismissed by two separate orders dated 21.11.2024 passed by the High Court holding that there exists a prima facie case against the appellants, and whether the accused/appellants were in a domestic relationship with the Complainant was the matter to be determined at the trial stage. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the petitions under Section 482 CrPC, the appellant approached the Apex court seeking remedy.
The crux of the dispute between the parties is that while the applicants (husband’s relatives) who were all living separately at Shivpuri, have been charged in acts of cruelty which had been alleged to be committed against the Complainant mostly at her matrimonial home situated at Sheopur (different city).
The argument was that initiation of criminal proceeding against the appellants amounted to abuse of process of the court because the implication of the appellants was completely unjustified. This argument was based on the allegation that the statements contained in the FIR and D.V. complaints were all omnibus statements, vague in nature, without any specifics about when, who, where, how the alleged acts were committed the acts were committed. Their allegation was that the accusations against them did not specify a certain and distinct acts of harassment attributed against each appellant individually; rather collectively accused them for causing harassment to the complainant. The appellants claimed the criminal proceeding was initiated out of vendetta. Within short time of her husband filing an application seeking living together, she filed FIR and made D.V. complaint. The divorce petition of complainant clearly reflects that she accused only husband with cruelty charges. She mentioned physical assault, use of hidden cameras and gun against her husband. These actions of hers show that she fabricated against others equally.
In fact, it was contended that she was staying separately from her husband. She was residing in a government quarter separately from her husband who was residing near her house. A statute dealing with the domestic violence empowers courts to dismiss the criminal complaints if there are not sufficient grounds to continue with the proceeding. Therefore, the High Court had enough powers to dismiss the criminal charges against the appellants. It was strongly contended from the side of the appellants that their implication amounted to misuse of legal process by initiating criminal proceeding against them.
On the contrary, the State of Madhya Pradesh and Sapna Dhakad, who is the complainant, firmly refuted the appeals for quashing of the proceedings. The commission of cognizable offenses is made by reading the FIR and the PWDV Act together. It was unreasonable to expect from the complainant to give every bit of information and evidence at the first stage of the investigation and trial. There cannot be any quashing of the proceedings on account of omission of minor facts under Section 482 of the CrPC. In such situations, the cases of matrimonial cruelty become pertinent which often happen within the four walls of the house.
The respondents have contended that allegations regarding continuous harassment for dowry, psychological and physical torture, and throwing away the complainant from the matrimonial home are very serious issues and must be adjudicated upon by a court of law. In the offence of cruelty, the husband’s relatives were equally involved. Each of the accused individuals contributed to committing acts of cruelty in the matter which will depend on evidence. The decision of the High Court in coming to the conclusion that a case had been established against the appellants was quite reasonable. The respondents further submitted that in respect of an issue raised under the DV Act, it was basically a matter of fact to determine whether there existed a relationship or living together between the complainant and the appellants. It was beyond the purview of the court exercising inherent jurisdiction to pronounce upon any disputed issue of fact. The proper forum to dispose of the issue will be trial court only.
On examining the facts of this case, the Apex court gave due consideration to the statements of both parties. The court did not limit its examination to the police complaint alone but also considered other papers filed simultaneously, like the divorce complaint and domestic violence complaint. Comparing both the documents, it was quite clear that there was a distinct difference between the two. While in the former two complaints all the husband's relatives were involved without naming any specifically, in the latter it mentioned specifically that beating, concealment of camera, use of adultery, armed threat by pistol, etc., and alleged involvement of a husband. In brief, the woman's complaint did not relate to any activity that might be committed by other women away from the matrimonial home (in instance at Shivpur - where appellant resided); rather, she had been subjected to alleged cruel treatment from her husband in the home in Sheopur (where complainant resided).
In the instant case, the Court held that the case falls within one of the areas mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC will vest with the High Courts. On facts, the Court held that the allegation was not, prima facie, made out against the appellants. On record, no evidence or claims or conduct of accused-appellants, with speculations which attribute alleged offence like Date and Time, Specific instance etc. At best, all that has been stated is that "they used to abuse" or that "they would demand dowry". All these are mere generalisations and do not, prima facie, disclose commission of any crime against the appellants.
The Supreme Court allowed of these appeals, set aside the impugned verdicts of the High Court and held that FIR/Crime No. 0041/2023 (and hence the subsequent charge-sheet) and proceedings in D.V. Complaint No. 1752 of 2023 should be quashed qua these appellants (Arti Mehta, Shrivati Bai Dhakad, Manisha Dhakad, and Vikram Dhakad). However, the proceedings against the husband have been kept intact.
The ratio decidendi of the decision rests on the proposition that the initiation of criminal proceedings against the relatives of a husband based on general, sweeping, and ambiguous allegations without any instance or overt act amounts to a misuse of law and process of law. According to the Court, prima facie case cannot be said to be established where the basis of complaint, especially when read along with the other pleadings filed by the complainant, points alleged guilt against the husband alone.
The Supreme Court clarified that the quashing of a proceeding under CrPC, Section 482 does not constitute an acquittal on merit and thus cannot result in the constitutionally prohibited principle of double jeopardy under both Article 20(2) of the Constitution and the statutory provision of CrPC, Section 300. It has specifically maintained the discretion vested in the trial court under the CrPC, Section 319, that in case the trial of the husband shows evidence which indicates the specifics about the present appellants participation in the crime, then he has full authority to summon them.
Without a doubt, the dowery system is wicked in society, and it is still vital for society to safeguard women from such brutality. In addition to 498A of the IPC, which aims to protect women in marriage, laws like the DV Act and PWDP Act play a crucial role as safeguards. Even though we live in the twenty-first century, this problem undoubtedly still exists. As society and social structures evolve over time, new dynamics are added to the subject. Considering the conviction rate, the Supreme Court's and High Courts' views, the husband's relatives' false accusations are used as a tool to resolve disputes or obtain unfair advantages. Grief-related marriage relationships are increasingly being used as a means of fabricating criminal charges. The Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar3 case from 2014 where the Supreme Court set up mandatoy guidelines to be adher in case of matrimonial disputes and subsequent arrents to and the numerous verdicts that followed indicate that the law is being abused and has strayed from its primary goal of protecting women. This ruling expands the judiciary's strategy to ensure that women are safeguarded, but not at the expense of any innocent people.