KAILASHBEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 62, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 62 : 2024 INSC 737
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. 
v. 
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 4003 of 2024)
25 September 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
FIR was filed against the appellants under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 
506 read with Section 34 IPC. Whether the High Court was justified 
in dismissing the petition under Section 482, CrPC for quashing 
of the said FIR and the chargesheet against the appellants and 
holding that a prima facie case of cruelty was made out against 
them under Section 498A, Penal Code, 1860.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w s.34 –  
Ingredients of – When not made out – Complaint filed by 
respondent no.2-wife making vague allegations alleging dowry 
demand and threat by the appellants (step mother-in-law, step 
brother-in-law, father-in-law and one other person) to deny her 
and her husband a share in the property – Petition u/s.482, 
CrPC filed by the appellants for quashing, dismissed by High 
Court – Correctness:
Held: Impugned judgment set aside – Criminal proceedings 
were filed with mala fide intention only to harass the appellants – 
Though all the allegations related to demand of dowry, the 
complainant chose not to involve her husband in the criminal 
proceedings – Complainant and her husband distributed amongst 
themselves, the institution of civil and criminal proceedings 
against the appellants with the husband instituting the
civil suit and 
the complainant filing criminal proceedings – The provocation for 
the Complaint/FIR was essentially the property dispute between 
father and son and it intended only to further their interest of 
the civil dispute – Allegations made were general, vague, and 
omnibus and lacked in particulars and details – The essence of 
* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
63
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. 
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
the complaint was in the alleged threat to deprive the husband 
any share in the property with respect to which the husband 
had already filed the suit for declaration – No offence made 
out on the basis of vague and unclear allegations – Further, 
the domestic violence complaint filed by respondent no.2 with 
identical allegations was also rejected as being false and 
untenable – None of the ingredients of ss.498A, 323, 504, 506 
r/w s.34 made out, criminal proceedings against the appellants 
are abuse of process of law – FIR and chargesheet quashed. 
[Paras 13-15, 17, 18]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Constitution of 
India – Article 226 – Duty of the court, when complaint/FIR is 
frivolous/vexatious/instituted with ulterior motive or is civil 
in nature – Discussed.
Quashing – Of criminal proceedings after filing of charge 
sheet – Permissibility:
Held: There is no prohibition against quashing of the criminal 
proceedings even after the filing of charge sheet. [Para 16]
Case Law Cited
Mohammad Wajid and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [2023] 
11 SCR 313 : (2023) SCC OnLine SC 951; Jaswant Singh v. 
State of Punjab [2021] 6 SCR 1100 : (2021) SCC OnLine SC 
1007; Usha Chakraborty v. State of W.B.(2023) SCC OnLine SC 
90; Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [2009] 14 SCR 1074 : (2009) 10 SCC 
184; Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v. State of A.P. [2024] 2 SCR 
252 : (2024) SCC OnLine SC
127; Kahkashan Kausar v. State 
of Bihar [2022] 1 SCR 558 : (2022) 6 SCC 599; Achin Gupta v. 
State of Haryana [2024] 6 SCR 129 : (2024) SCC OnLine SC 
759; Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2018] 13 
SCR 1028 : (2019) 11 SCC 706; Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of 
Gujarat [2011] 8 SCR 815 : (2011) 7 SCC 59; A.M. Mohan v. 
State [2024] 3 SCR 722 : (2024) SCC OnLine SC 339; Mamta 
Shailesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand (2024) SCC OnLine 
SC 136 – relied on.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
64
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Quashing; Cruelty; Dowry demand; Matrimonial disputes; Dispute 
civil in nature; General, vague, omnibus allegations lacking in 
particulars and details; Domestic violence complaint dismissed; 
Abuse of process of law/criminal process; Travesty of justice; 
Complaint/FIR frivolous/vexatious, civil in nature.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 4003 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2017 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CRLA No. 4015 of 2014
Appearances for Parties
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, S. Niranjan Reddy, Sidharth Luthra, Sr. 
Advs., Ms. Shally Bhasin, Prateek Gupta, Prateek Yadav, Siddharth 
Seem, Ms. Palak Arora, S. S. Shroff, Jay Kansara, Chiranjivi Sharma, 
Vasu Gupta, Kushagra Raghuvanshi, Karanvir Gogia, Prudhvi Samrat, 
Pranaya Goyal, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sanjeev Despande, Sr. Adv., Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth 
Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav 
Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Mahesh 
Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Victor Das, Shashwat 
Singh, E. C. Agrawala, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
1.	
Leave granted. 
2.	
This criminal appeal is against the dismissal of a petition under Section 
482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet 
against the appellants
herein. By order dated 01.05.2018, this Court 
issued notice in the Special Leave Petition and stayed the criminal 
proceedings. The short and necessary facts for disposal of this 
criminal appeal are as follows. 
3.	
Respondent no. 2 is the complainant. She was married to one 
Niraj Mahendrabhai Patel in 2002, and he is not a party in these
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
65
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. 
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
proceedings. On 01.03.2013, the complainant filed a complaint, 
pursuant to which an FIR was registered on 25.03.2013 at P.S. 
Jalna, Maharashtra under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with 
Section 34 IPC against the appellants, who are her step mother-in-law 
(appellant no. 1), step brother-in-law (appellant no. 2), father-in-law 
(appellant no. 3), and the Munim (appellant no. 4). The chargesheet 
in this case was filed on 30.07.2013. 
4.	
A precise but accurate description of the allegations in the FIR are that, 
i) her husband is the son of the appellant no. 3 and his late first wife. 
Thereafter, the appellant no. 3 married appellant no. 1 and their son 
is appellant no. 2. She lived with her husband, son and daughter in 
Mumbai, from where her husband was managing the family business 
by giving complete accounts to the family, ii) at the time of marriage 
her father gave certain articles and cash as dowry, and iii) she also 
held a joint locker at a bank in Anand, Gujarat with appellant no. 1, 
keys to which were kept by appellant no. 1 alone. iv) At the time of 
the birth of her daughter, which was eight years before the complaint, 
appellant nos. 1 and 3 visited her at the hospital and threatened 
to deprive her of a share in the property and refused to return the 
gold and silver ornaments that were kept in the locker. v) About 
2-4 months after the delivery, when she
returned to her matrimonial 
house in Mumbai, appellant nos. 1 and 3 initially refused to take her 
and later deprived her of food and physically assaulted her. vi) Even 
when her son was born, which was four years before the complaint, 
appellants no. 1 to 3 visited her at Jalna and threatened to deprive 
her and her husband any share in the property. vii) She has also 
alleged that appellant no. 2 hindered her daughter’s education by 
cancelling her school admission. viii) Against appellant no. 4, who 
is the Munim, she has alleged that he threatened her that the family 
property only belongs to appellant no. 2 and that the complainant, and 
her husband will have no share in it. ix) Under these circumstances, 
being frightened, she left the house of the appellants along with her 
husband and children and started living in Jalna, her parental home. 
x) Even at Jalna, the accused persons threatened her and asked 
her to bring Rs. 50,00,000/- for the future of her son and daughter. 
There is danger to her life and also to the life of her husband and 
children and therefore the complaint on 01.03.2013. The FIR was 
registered on 25.03.2013, and chargesheet came to be filed on 
30.07.2013.
66
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
5.	
The appellants filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 
for quashing the FIR dated 25.03.2013 and the chargesheet dated 
30.07.2013. By the order impugned herein, the High Court held that 
a prima facie case of cruelty is made out under Section 498A. The 
High Court also observed that the complainant specifically referred 
to instances of cruelty and attributed overt acts to each appellant. 
Rejecting the contention of the appellants that neither the Police 
Station, nor the Courts will have jurisdiction, the Court held that Jalna 
would have jurisdiction as per Sections 178 and 179 of the CrPC as 
some part of the offence was committed there.
6.	
The appellants have preferred the present appeal against the High 
Court’s order. While issuing notice on 01.05.2018, this Court also 
stayed further proceedings. 
7.	
We have heard Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr Sidharth Luthra, 
learned senior counsels for the appellants and Mr. Shrirang B Varma, 
learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra and Mr. Sanjeev 
Despande, learned senior counsel for respondent no. 2. 
7.1	 The learned senior counsels for the appellants have contended 
that the allegations in the FIR are general and omnibus in nature 
and lack material particulars bereft of any details, rendering the 
complaint vague and obscure. There is an existing civil dispute 
between the father and the son and as such this FIR is an abuse 
of the process of
criminal law. Further, Section 161 statements 
of witnesses are identical and are based on information from 
respondent no. 2. They are vague and do not have material 
particulars about the date and time of the incident. Our attention 
is also drawn to the judgment and order dated 16.01.2019, 
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna dismissing 
identical allegations, but under Section 12 of the Domestic 
Violence Act. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 
respondent supported the decision and reasoning adopted by 
the High Court.
8.	
Analysis: After identifying certain allegations in the Complaint/FIR, 
the High Court came to a quick conclusion that there are specific 
allegations against each of the accused. After referring to certain 
precedents on the scope and ambit of the power under Section 482 
CrPC, the High Court came to a conclusion that exercise of power 
under Section 482 for quashing an FIR/Complaint is not warranted in
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
67
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. 
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
the facts and circumstances of the case. Beyond holding that there 
are specific allegations, there is no other analysis. The duty of the 
High Court, when its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 
226 of the Constitution is invoked on the ground that the Complaint/
FIR is manifestly frivolous, vexatious or instituted with ulterior motive 
for wreaking vengeance, to examine the allegations with care and 
caution is highlighted in a recent decision of this Court in Mohammad 
Wajid and Another v. State of U.P. and Others1:
“34. 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. 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. 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 482 
of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not 
1	
[2023] 11 SCR 313 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951.
68
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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.”
8.1	 Keeping in mind the broad principle as enunciated in the above 
referred precedent, we will now examine the Complaint/FIR 
challenged by the appellants in the Section 482 proceeding.
9.	
The FIR in this case is rather unique, in as much as the complainant 
has chosen not to involve her husband in the criminal proceedings, 
particularly when all the allegations relate to demand of dowry. It 
appears that the complainant and her husband have distributed 
amongst themselves, the institution of civil and criminal proceedings 
against the appellants. While the husband institutes the civil suit, his 
wife, the complainant has chosen to initiate criminal proceedings. 
Interestingly, there is no reference of one proceeding in the other. On 
27.02.2013, the husband filed the Special Civil Suit No. 35 of 2013 
in Anand against the three appellants, i.e. his father, stepmother and 
stepbrother seeking for a
declaration that the property is ancestral 
in nature and that the father has no right to alienate or dispose of 
the property. In that suit the husband also sought a declaration that 
he is entitled to use the trademark of the family business. Though 
the written statement filed by the appellants in the suit is brought 
on record, we are not inclined to examine the details of the civil 
dispute, but suffice to note the existence of a highly contentious 
civil dispute between the complainant’s husband at one hand and 
her father-in-law and others on the other hand. 
9.1	 While the husband chose to institute the civil suit on 27.02.2013, 
the complainant filed the present criminal complaint on 
01.03.2013 alleging demand of dowry and threat by appellants 
that she and her husband will be denied a share in the property. 
The provocation for the Complaint/FIR is essentially the property 
dispute between father and son.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
69
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. 
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
9.2	 Further, the rights and claims in the suit are the very basis 
and provocation for filing the criminal cases. The Complaint/
FIR is replete with just one theme i.e. that the appellants are 
threatening them that they will deny share in the property. 
The Complaint/FIR is intended only to further their interest of 
the civil dispute. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P 2 this Court 
cautioned that:
“8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has 
to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its 
jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the 
matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which 
is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak 
of criminal offence.
Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other 
remedies available in law. Before issuing process a 
criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. 
For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court 
has laid certain principles on the basis of which the 
High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 
482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has 
to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of 
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
9.3	 The duty of the court, when FIR has predominating and 
overwhelming civil flavour is also reflected in the opinion of 
this Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab,3 this court 
observed that:
“19. From the above
discussion on the settled legal 
principles, it is clear from the facts of the present 
case that there was a clear abuse of the process 
of the Court and further that the Court had a duty 
to secure the ends of justice. We say so for the 
following reasons; 
a) The allegations made in the FIR had an 
overwhelmingly and predominatingly a civil 
2	
(2000) 2 SCC 636.
3	
[2021] 6 SCR 1100 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1007.
70
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
flavour inasmuch as the complainant alleged that 
he had paid money to Gurmeet Singh, the main 
accused to get employment for his son abroad. 
If Gurmeet Singh failed the complainant could 
have filed a suit for recovery of the amount paid 
for not fulfilling the promise. 
…
20. In our considered view, the High Court erred in 
firstly not considering the entire material on record and 
further in not appreciating the fact that the dispute, 
if any, was civil in nature and that the complainant 
had already settled his score with the main accused 
Gurmeet Singh against whom the proceedings have 
been closed as far back as 26.09.2014. In this 
scenario, there remains no justification to continue 
with the proceedings against the appellant.”
10.	 We will now examine the ‘specific allegations’ in the FIR/complaint. 
Firstly, the complainant referred to certain items which are said 
to have been given by her father at the time of marriage. These 
items are (i) one Scorpio car; (ii) T.V.; (iii) fridge; (iv) DVD Tape; (v) 
silver utensils; (vi) 100 to 150 tolas gold; (vii) and Rs. 5 lacs. This 
allegation relates to the year 2002 and the present complaint is of the 
year 2013. It is important to mention at this very stage that identical 
allegations in a DV case filed by the complainant were taken up 
at trial and the Judicial Magistrate, First Class had disbelieved the 
complainant’s version. We will be dealing with the judgment of
the 
Judicial Magistrate, First Class in little more detail in the succeeding 
paras of the judgment. The second allegation relates to a bare 
statement that there exists a joint locker and that the keys of the 
said locker are with her stepmother-in-law, that is the appellant no. 
1. Even on this, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class has observed 
that there are no details whatsoever, about the bank or the locker. 
10.1	The tendency to make general, vague, and omnibus allegation 
is noticed by this Court in many decisions. In Usha Chakraborty 
v. State of W.B.,4 this court observed that:
4	
2023 SCC OnLine SC 90.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
71
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. 
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
“16... the respondent alleged commission of offences 
under Sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 
and 120B, IPC against the appellants. A bare perusal 
of the said allegation and the ingredients to attract 
them, as adverted to hereinbefore would reveal that 
the allegations are vague and they did not carry 
the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged 
offences.... The ingredients to attract the alleged 
offence referred to hereinbefore and the nature of 
the allegations contained in the application filed by 
the respondent would undoubtedly make it clear 
that the respondent had failed to make specific 
allegation against the appellants herein in respect 
of the aforesaid offences. The factual position thus 
would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of 
criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid 
incident and further that the dispute involved is 
essentially of civil nature. The appellants and the 
respondents have given a cloak of criminal offence 
in the issue ...”
10.2	Similarly, dealing with allegations lacking in particulars and 
details, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti,5 this court observed that:
“7. ...what strikes us is that there are no particulars 
given as to the date on which the ornaments were 
handed over, as to the exact number of ornaments 
or their description and as to the date when the 
ornaments were asked back and were refused. Even 
the
weight of the ornaments is not mentioned in the 
complaint and it is a general and vague complaint 
that the ornaments were sometime given in the 
custody of the appellants and they were not returned. 
What strikes us more is that even in Para 10 of the 
complaint where the complainant says that she asked 
for her clothes and ornaments which were given to 
the accused and they refused to give these back, 
the date is significantly absent.”
5	
[2009] 14 SCR 1074 : (2009) 10 SCC 184.
72
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
11.	 The third allegation is against appellant no. 1, the mother-in-law, who 
is said to have threatened the complainant when she gave birth to 
a girl child. The threat is that the complainant will not get her gold 
and silver ornaments, and her husband will not get any share in the 
property. The allegations are again vague, lacking in basic details. 
The essence of the complaint is in the alleged threat to deprive the 
husband any share in the property with respect to which the husband 
has already filed the suit for declaration.
12.	 The complaint also refers to a small incident where the complainant’s 
brother accompanied her to the matrimonial house, when the 
appellants no. 1 and 3 are alleged to have refused to take her back 
but on persuasion by her brother, she was allowed to stay. There 
is also a vague allegation that, when the complainant gave birth to 
a second child, appellants 1 and 2 came and “quarrelled” with the 
complainant, her brother, parents and threatened them. This Court 
had occasion to examine the phenomenon of general and omnibus 
allegations in the cases of matrimonial disputes. In Mamidi Anil Kumar 
Reddy v. State of A.P.6 this Court observed that:
“14. ...A bare perusal of the complaint, statement of 
witnesses’ and the charge-sheet shows that the allegations 
against the Appellants are wholly general and omnibus in 
nature; even if they are taken in their entirety, they do not 
prima facie
make out a case against the Appellants. The 
material on record neither discloses any particulars of the 
offences alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations 
assigned to any of the Appellants in the commission of 
the offences.
15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of general 
omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes 
is not unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar alias 
Sonam v. State of Bihar, this Court dealt with a similar 
case wherein the allegations made by the complainant-wife 
against her in-laws u/s. 498A and others were vague and 
general, lacking any specific role and particulars. The court 
proceeded to quash the FIR against the accused persons 
6	
2024 SCC OnLine SC 127.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
73
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. 
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
and noted that such a situation, if left unchecked, would 
result in the abuse of the process of law.”
13.	 There is also an allegation against the appellant no. 2 about which 
the complainant passingly mentioned that “my daughter’s education 
disturbed since my brother-in-law Rahul cancelled her school 
admission by signing fraudulently”. The complaint is again silent 
about when such an act was done, where was it done, which was 
the school in which the admission was cancelled, what documents 
were signed for such cancellation, and what is fraud played by 
him. It is impossible to conceive of any offence on the basis of 
such vague and unclear allegations. Lastly, there is an allegation 
against the appellant no. 4, the Munim against whom it is said “Vijay 
Ranchhodbhai Patel is telling stories to my in-laws against me, my 
husband and my children and making them to mentally torture us”. 
The Munim is said to have threatened them and ask them to go 
away as there is nothing left for them as the entire property belongs 
to Rahul, appellant no. 2.	
13.1	In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar 7 this Court noticed the 
injustice that may be caused when parties are forced to go 
through tribulations of a trial based on general and omnibus 
allegations. The relevant portion of the observation is as under:
“11. …in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the 
country has also increased
significantly and there 
is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the 
institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This 
has resulted in an increased tendency to employ 
provisions such as Section 498-A IPC as instruments 
to settle personal scores against the husband and 
his relatives.
18. ... upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 
1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are 
levelled against the appellants. The complainant 
alleged that “all accused harassed her mentally 
and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy”. 
Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have 
7	
[2022] 1 SCR 558 : (2022) 6 SCC 599.
74
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
been made against either of the appellants herein 
i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any 
specific role in furtherance of the general allegations 
made against them. This simply leads to a situation 
wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by 
each accused in furtherance of the offence. The 
allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus 
and can at best be said to have been made out on 
account of small skirmishes... However, as far as 
the appellants are concerned, the allegations made 
against them being general and omnibus, do not 
warrant prosecution.
21. …it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to 
go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and 
omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation 
where the relatives of the complainant’s husband 
are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted 
by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial 
leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe 
scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, 
therefore, be discouraged.”
14.	 One important event that gives us a clear impression that the criminal 
proceedings were instituted with a mala fide intention, only to harass 
the appellants, is the filing of the Domestic Violence case. After the 
institution of the Civil Case on 27.02.2013 and thereafter the present 
Criminal Complaint/FIR, respondent no. 2 filed a complaint under 
Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act
on 06.04.2013, based on 
similar allegations. The DV complaint refers to the same items, a 
Scorpio car, T.V., fridge, DVD Tape, silver articles, 100 to 150 tolas 
gold and cash of Rs. 5 lacs as dowry. Again, there is an allegation 
that the accused have threatened that she will not get a share in the 
property as she gave birth to a girl child. There are similar allegations 
against appellant no. 2 as well as the Munim, the appellant no. 4. 
The domestic violence complaint went to trial and culminated in a 
detailed judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna dated 
16.01.2019. We are informed that the judgment and order has become 
final as there was no appeal against the said order. While dismissing 
the domestic violence complaint, the learned judge observed as under:
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
75
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. 
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
“19. During cross examination, the applicant admitted 
that the property dispute is going on in between her 
and respondents. Again, she voluntarily stated that the 
property dispute is pending in between her husband and 
parents in law. Moreover, the applicant appears deposed 
specifically that where ever Joint Bank Accounts are in 
the name of respondents, her and her husband, in such 
cases, respondents shall be prohibited from operation said 
accounts and she shall be allowed to operate. It further 
appears that the applicant family shall be provided same 
level of accommodation as holding by respondents.
20. The above ocular evidence and admission are clearly 
suggesting that the applicant has brought the present 
application at the behest of her husband and with ulterior 
motive to grab property which the husband of the applicant 
may be entitled by other provisions of law. The wordings 
used in the application reveal selfish nature of the applicant. 
Hence, in the given circumstances, I am of opinion that 
it would be unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of the 
applicant without corroboration. 
21. It seems that the applicant has not brought any other 
cogent and reliable evidence in support of her said oral 
evidence. Moreover, it appears that the case filed U/s 498(A) 
of IPC bearing RCC No. 376/2014 is not yet concluded. 
There is no record showing that respondents have been
held 
guilty till today in that matter. It means that said allegations 
are not yet proved and not available for corroboration 
purpose. Therefore, I am coming to the conclusion that there 
is no cogent and reliable evidence as to domestic violence 
and accordingly I record my finding to Point No. 1 as “No”.”
15.	 We are not referring to all the findings of the Court dismissing the 
domestic violence complaint. It is sufficient to note that identical 
allegations were examined in detail, subjected to strict scrutiny, 
and rejected as being false and untenable. This case is yet another 
instance of abuse of criminal process and it would not be fair and 
just to subject the appellants to the entire criminal law process. In 
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana,8 this court observed that:
8	
[2024] 6 SCR 129 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759.
76
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“20. It is now well settled that the power under Section 482 
of the Cr. P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and 
with caution, only where such exercise is justified by the 
tests laid down in the Section itself. It is also well settled 
that Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. does not confer any new 
power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power, 
which the Court possessed before the enactment of the 
Criminal Procedure Code. There are three circumstances 
under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, 
namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to 
prevent abuse of the process of Court, and iii) to otherwise 
secure the ends of justice.
21. …It would be an abuse of process of the court to 
allow any action which would result in injustice and 
prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, 
the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if 
it finds that the initiation or continuance of it amounts 
to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these 
proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. 
When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court 
may examine the question of fact. When a 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.
36. For the foregoing reasons, we have reached to the
conclusion that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to 
continue against the Appellant, the same will be nothing 
short of abuse of process of law & travesty of justice. This 
is a fit case wherein, the High Court should have exercised 
its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for 
the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings.”
16.	 It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that after investigation, 
charge sheet has already been filed and that this Court should not 
interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The chargesheet is 
on record and we have examined it carefully, it simply reproduces 
all the wordings of the complaint. There is nothing new even after 
investigation, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint are exactly
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
77
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. 
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
the allegations in the charge sheet. Even otherwise, the position of 
law is well entrenched. There is no prohibition against quashing of 
the criminal proceedings even after the charge sheet has been filed. 
In Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi).9
“14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of 
the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once 
the charge-sheet is filed, petition for quashing of FIR is 
untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission, 
keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj 
A. v. State of Gujarat...
15. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the 
provision invoked by the accused before the High Court is 
Section 482 CrPC and that this Court is hearing an appeal 
from an order under Section 482 CrPC….
16. There is nothing in the words of this section which 
restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent 
the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only 
to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that 
the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 
CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with 
the trial court. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that 
proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered 
with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and 
the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On 
the contrary it could be
said that the abuse of process 
caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken 
the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power 
is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of 
power of any court.”
Similar view is taken by this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of 
Gujarat;10 A.M. Mohan v. State;11 Mamta Shailesh Chandra v. State 
of Uttarakhand.12 
9	
[2018] 13 SCR 1028 : (2019) 11 SCC 706.
10	
[2011] 8 SCR 815 : (2011) 7 SCC 59.
11	
[2024] 3 SCR 722 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339.
12	
2024 SCC OnLine SC 136.
78
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
17.	 Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that 
none of the ingredients of Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with 
Section 34 IPC are made out. We have no hesitation in arriving at 
the conclusion that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue 
against the appellants, the same will be nothing short of abuse of 
process of law and travesty of justice. Though the appellants have 
also argued on the ground that Jalna Police Station and the Chief 
Judicial Magistrate, Jalna did not have jurisdiction, we are not inclined 
to examine that position in view of our finding that the Complaint/
FIR and the chargesheet cannot be sustained. 
18.	 For the reasons above mentioned, we allow the present appeal, set 
aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court in Criminal 
Application No. 4015 of 2014 dated 05.05.2017, and quash FIR 
dated 25.03.2013 bearing Crime No. 81/2013 filed under Sections 
498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC at P.S. Jalna and the 
chargesheet dated 30.07.2013 bearing Chargesheet No. 123/2013 
in the above FIR. 
Result of the Case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey