ACHIN GUPTA versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 129, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 129 : 2024 INSC 369
Achin Gupta 
v. 
State of Haryana & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024)
 03 May 2024
[J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The appellant herein was chargesheeted u/ss.323, 406, 498A and 
506 of IPC. The appellant filed a quashing petition for the purpose 
of getting the criminal proceedings quashed. The High Court by 
its impugned order, declined to quash the criminal proceedings in 
exercise of its inherent powers u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973. Whether the High Court should have exercised its 
inherent power u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing 
the criminal proceedings.
Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 323, 406, 498A and 506 – Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – The contents of the FIR 
(dated 09.04.2021) indicated that appellant-husband and his 
family members had allegedly demanded dowry and thereby 
caused mental and physical trauma to the first informant-wife 
(respondent no.2) – After investigation, police filed chargesheet 
only against appellant – Appellant sought quashing of criminal 
proceedings – High Court declined to quash the same – 
Correctness:
Held: Appellant and respondent no.2 got married in 2008 – Appellant 
filed a divorce petition in July 2019 – However, same was later 
withdrawn as appellant was finding it difficult to take care of his 
child, while travelling to Court on the dates fixed – Appellant’s 
mother had filed a domestic
violence case against the respondent 
no.2 in october 2020 under provisions of the Protection of Women 
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Allegations levelled in the FIR 
were vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of 
criminal conduct – FIR has no specific date or time of the alleged 
offences – In view of this Court, FIR in question was a counterblast 
to the divorce petition and also domestic violence case – The FIR 
was lodged on 09.04.2021, nearly 2 years after filing of the divorce
130
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
petition by appellant and 6 months after filing of the domestic violence 
case by her mother-in-law – There is no explanation for delay in 
filing FIR – According to the Court, it was only filed to harass the 
appellant and his family members – 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. [Paras 16-19, 36]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Circumstances 
under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:
Held: It is 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 Code of Criminal Procedure – 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. [Para 20]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Exercise of power under 
s.482 – Prevention of abuse of the process of the Court:
Held: It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial 
justice for the administration of
which alone courts exist – The 
authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any 
attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the 
court has the power to prevent such abuse – 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. [Para 21]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – No restriction 
on exercise of power – Stages of FIR, investigation and 
chargesheet:
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
131
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Held: Once the investigation is over and chargesheet is filed, the 
FIR pales into insignificance – The court, thereafter, owes a duty to 
look into all the materials collected by the investigating agency in 
the form of chargesheet – There is nothing in the words of Section 
482 of the Cr.P.C. 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 would be a travesty of 
justice to hold that the proceedings initiated against a person can 
be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has materialized 
into a chargesheet. [Para 22]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – General and 
sweeping allegations – Matrimonial dispute – Duty of Court:
Held: If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some 
general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record 
any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but 
abuse of the process of the court – The court owes a duty to 
subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough 
scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of 
truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the 
sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, 
more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial 
dispute. [Para 25]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A – Matrimonial dispute – Determining 
cruelty –
Consequence of technical and hyper sensitive 
approach:
Held: The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be 
weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes 
cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the 
physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character 
and social status – A very technical and hyper sensitive 
approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution 
of the marriage – Police machinery should be resorted to as 
a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case 
of cruelty and harassment – The Police machinery cannot be 
utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so 
that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her 
parents or relatives or friends. [Para 32]
Legislation – Suggestions by Court – Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 
2023 – ss. 85 and 86:
132
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Held: Sections 85 and 86 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are 
verbatim reproduction of section 498A of the IPC – Attention was 
brought to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Preeti 
Gupta v. State of Jharkhand – Request made to the Legislature 
to look into the issue and take into consideration the pragmatic 
realities and consider making necessary changes in Sections 85 
and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, before 
both the new provisions come into force. [Para 40]
Case Law Cited
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866; 
State of A.P. v. Vangaveeti Nagaiah [2009] 6 SCR 
160 : (2009) 12 SCC 466 : AIR 2009 SC 2646; Preeti 
Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [2010] 9 SCR 1168 : 2010 
Criminal Law Journal 4303 (1); Arnesh Kumar v. State 
of Bihar [2014] 8 SCR 128 : Crl.A.No.1277 of 2014 
decided on 02.07.2014; Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State 
of U.P. [2012] 9 SCR 641 : (2012) 10 SCC 741; State 
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1990] Supp 3 SCR 259 : 
[1992] Supp. (1) SCC 335; Mahmood Ali & Ors. v. State 
of U.P & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950 – relied on.
Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky (1950) 2 All ER 398 – referred 
to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
American Jurisprudence 2nd edition Vol.24 page 206.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Protection 
of Women from Domestic violence Act, 2005; Bhartiya Nyaya 
Sanhita, 2023.
List of Keywords
Dowry; Cruelty and harassment; Mental and
physical trauma; 
Quashing of criminal proceedings; Domestic violence; Section 
498A of Penal Code 1860; Sections 85 and 86 of Bhartiya Nyaya 
Sanhita; Vague, general and sweeping allegations in FIR; Section 
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Inherent power of the 
High Court; Ex debito justitiae; Abuse of process of the court; 
Miscarriage of justice; Matrimonial dispute.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
133
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2379 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2022 of the High Court 
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No.14198 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
Yusuf, Adv. for the Appellant.
Chritarth Palli, Dr. Monika Gusain, Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Abhishek 
Grover, Vivek Gupta, Vikas Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J. B. Pardiwala, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 05.04.2022 in the Criminal Main 
No. 14198-2022 (CRM-M-141 98-2022) filed by the Appellant herein 
(sole accused in the chargesheet) by which the High Court rejected 
the petition & thereby declined to quash the chargesheet dated 
13.10.2021 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 406, 
498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the “IPC”) 
arising from the First Information Report No. 95 of 2021 lodged by 
the Respondent No. 2 (wife of the Appellant) at the Urban Estate 
Hisar Police Station, District Hisar. 
FACTUAL MATRIX
3.	
The FIR dated 09.04.2021 reads thus: -
"1.	
That the First Informant Tanu Gupta wife of Achin 
Gupta and daughter of Harish Manocha, is a resident 
of House No.1368, Urban Estate - 2, Hisar, Tehsil 
and District Hisar and is a peace loving and law 
abiding woman and my marriage was solemnized
according to Hindu rites and rituals with Accused 
No.1 on 09.10.2008 at New Delhi. My family had 
spent about thirty lakhs rupees in my engagement
134
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
ceremony and marriage as per the direction of the 
accused persons towards furniture, jewellery, clothes 
and other household articles. At the time of marriage, 
my family handed over all her jewellery and stridhan 
to the accused persons saying that it is the stridhan 
of the first informant and whenever the first informant 
will need her stridhan, it has to be given back to her 
whereupon the accused persons assured the family 
of the first informant that whenever the first informant 
will need it, they will give it back to her.
2.	
That after the marriage, the first informant and 
Accused No.1 lived as husband and wife at B-39, 
Phase-2, Vikas Nagar, Hastsaal, Uttam Nagar, New 
Delhi 110059 and the first informant performed all 
the duties of a wife and out of the said wedlock a 
boy, namely, Advay aged 8 years was born, who is 
presently residing with Accused No.1.
3.	
That after few days of the marriage, when the first 
informant went to her matrimonial house at that time 
the Accused persons taunted that your family has 
lowered down our image in the society and before 
relatives by giving less dowry and said to the first 
informant that at least your family should have given 
a big car in the dowry because Accused No.1 is 
doing a good job and almost earns Rs. 1,50,000/- 
monthly and for him, we were getting proposal from 
rich families who would have spent crores of rupees 
on the marriage. On this the first
informant said that 
her family had already given 5 lakhs rupees in cash 
for purchasing the car and have already spent more 
than their capability and now they cannot fulfil your 
demand for more dowry whereupon accused persons 
threatened the first informant saying that if you want to 
live with us then you have to get our above demand 
for the dowry fulfilled by your parents otherwise you 
will not be allowed to live in this house.
4.	
That whenever the first informant cooked food in the 
matrimonial home, the accused persons always used
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
135
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
to point out unnecessary defects in the food and 
taunted the first informant that she does not know 
cooking. To harass and upset the first informant, the 
accused persons deliberately asked her to make 
various dishes and when the first informant showed 
her inability, the accused persons used to abuse 
and beat her. 
5.	
That Accused No.3 is the mother-in-law of the first 
informant, who is a teacher and she used to leave 
the house at 7:00 hrs in the morning for the school 
and the first informant used to do all household works 
and when her mother-in-law returned from the school, 
she deliberately used to point out defects in her work 
and used to taunt the first informant that your family 
should have given gold bangles to me and now, you 
would have to bring gold bangles from your family 
and when the first informant tell her that her family 
had already spent a lot over her marriage, then she 
used to abuse and give beatings to the first informant. 
6.	
That Accused No.4 is the sister-in-law of the first 
informant who used to say that your family should 
have given a diamond set for me in the marriage 
which they have not given and now if you want to 
live in this house you have to bring diamond set for 
me otherwise I will not let you live in the house and 
besides this, Accused No.4 treated the first informant 
like a domestic servant and used to abuse and give 
beatings to the first informant over petty
issues 
and instigated the other members of the family 
against the first informant. That the first informant 
always performed the duties of an ideal wife with 
utmost honesty and sincerity and the first informant 
had always lived with Accused No.1 with love and 
always fulfils his demands and demands of the other 
accused persons. That the first informant used to 
do all household work at her matrimonial house in 
whatever manner the accused persons used to ask 
her. In this way, there is no fault on the part of the 
first informant. That Accused No.1 had never treated
136
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the first informant with love and care rather he used 
to treat the first informant with cruelty. Beating and 
abusing the first informant on account of demand of 
dowry was a daily routine of the Accused persons.
7.	
That Accused No. 1 is an alcoholic. Who use to 
torture, abuse, beat the first informant and treated 
her inhumanely on account of less dowry under the 
effect of alcohol. Whenever the first informant used 
to tell her parents-in law Accused No. 2 and 3 about 
this they said that until you do not get our demand 
of dowry fulfilled by your parents till then you have 
to bear all this. The Accused persons used to treat 
the first informant like a domestic servant. The first 
informant was not allowed to even make phone calls 
to her family and Accused No. 1 deliberately had 
hacked the phone of the first informant and she was 
not allowed to step out of the house. Being a Hindu 
woman the first informant tolerated all tortures of the 
Accused with a hope that one day they will mend 
their ways and the first informant’s will live in the 
house happily but the same did not happen rather 
the behaviour of the Accused persons became more 
cruel towards the first informant. 
8.	
That Accused No. 5 is the brother-in-law of the first 
informant and he resides in Delhi. After the marriage 
he used to come to the matrimonial house of the 
first informant alongwith Accused No. 4 and used to 
instigate Accused No. 1 to 3
against the first informant. 
When the first informant used to oppose this he used 
to hurl abuses to the first informant. 
9.	
That during this period the Accused persons have 
beaten the first informant multiple times for demand 
of dowry and whenever the accused persons threw 
out the first informant out of the house every time 
the family of the Petitioner used to come along with 
panchas of the society and sat with the Accused 
persons and in every meeting at least something 
was given to the Accused persons but the Accused
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
137
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
persons neither left their demand for dowry nor they 
changed their behaviour. 
10.	 That on 02.03.2012 a son Advay was born to the 
first informant, the Accused persons said to the first 
informant that now in the traditional gifts you have 
to fulfil our demand for dowry. In the traditional gift 
the family of the first informant gave 5 tolas of gold 
ornaments, 51 thousand rupees in cash, and spent 
about 1 lakh rupees on clothing, sweets and other 
items. But the Accused persons were not satisfied 
with the articles gifted at that time and were adamant 
on their demand.
11.	 That when the first informant was at her matrimonial 
house she was posted on the post of Assistant 
Professor in a college at Delhi but Accused No. 1 to 3 
used to snatch the whole salary of the first informant 
and even did not give pocket money to the first 
informant. Whenever the first informant demanded 
pocket money from Accused No. 1 he used to beat 
her and said that you take your expenses from your 
family. It is pertinent to mention here that even after the 
marriage the family of the first informant many times 
gave pocket money and money for other expenses. 
Before going for her job the first informant used to do 
all household work and prepared lunch after waking 
up early in the morning and then she went to the 
college and after returning in the evening she used 
to do all household work.
12.	 That after the marriage,
Accused No.3 and 4 
pressurized the first informant that you have to 
wear saree because according to the tradition, the 
daughters-in-law used to wear sarees. When the first 
informant said that I am not able to do the household 
chores while wearing saree, they both used to beat 
and abuse the first informant. 
13.	 That in 2014, the first informant came to know that 
her husband Respondent No.1 is in illicit relationship 
with Vandana Sharma and when the first informant
138
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
objected to this Accused No. 1 used to abuse and 
beat her and used to threaten that if you will tell this 
fact to anyone, I will kill you. It is pertinent to mention 
here that on 19.03.2019 when Accused No. 1 had 
taken the abovenamed Vandana Sharma on a tour to 
Jaipur, Rajasthan at that time the first informant and 
her brother reached Khaskoti Hotel, Jaipur and there 
they found both of them in a compromising position 
and objected to it, Accused No. 1 slapped the first 
informant and said that why have you brought your 
family here. At that time the first informant and her 
family did not initiate any legal proceedings against 
the Accused No.1 because Accused No.1 had 
assured that after today he would not meet Vandana 
Sharma and after this the first informant went to her 
matrimonial house alongwith Accused No.1. 
14.	 That even after this Accused No. 1 used to talk with 
Vandana Sharma on phone and also met with her. 
While the first informant was at her matrimonial house, 
Accused No.1 filed a Divorce Petition on 25.07.2019 
and which was filed on the basis of false and baseless 
grounds. In the said case when on 10.08.2019 a 
summon came at 6:30 in the morning, Accused No. 
1 and 2 forcibly got the summons signed by the first 
informant and said that now we do not need you 
anymore and when the first informant objected to 
this, they had beaten the first informant. Thereafter 
the first informant called her
father on phone and 
called him at her matrimonial house. Thereafter my 
family members came to my matrimonial house. 
Thereafter on 10.08.2019 the first informant filed an 
application against the Accused persons at Ranholla 
police station, Delhi and after that the first informant 
came to her parental house alongwith her father. 
Thereafter as per the order of the court the first 
informant again started living with Accused No. 1 at 
her matrimonial house. 
15.	 That in March, 2020 during the pandemic of Covid-19, 
Accused No. 1 took the minor son with him and did not
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
139
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
come home for so many days and before leaving the 
house Accused No. 1 had cut the water connection, 
and television connection of the house. Thereafter the 
first informant called her father on phone and called 
him at her house. Thereafter on 30.03.2020 the father 
of the first informant after getting the permission from 
police the father of the first informant brought her 
to her parental home from her matrimonial house. 
When the first informant informed Accused No. 1 over 
phone that I am going with my father then he said 
that who wants to keep you with him. Thereafter the 
family of the first informant held many meetings in the 
presence of elders and respectable members of the 
society and tried to convince the Accused persons 
that they should keep the first informant with them 
but the Accused persons were stubborn on their 
demands of dowry and had clearly refused to keep 
the first informant without fulfillment of their demand 
for dowry and when the first informant asked for her 
jewellery, stridhan and for her minor son, they clearly 
refused and threatened that if you file any complaint 
to the police against us we will kill the first informant.
16.	 That in this way, the Accused persons have ignored 
the first informant due to their dowry demand and 
they have even not returned the first informant her 
stridhan and are threatening that if without fulfilling 
their demand of dowry, the first
informant comes to 
their house, they will kill her. Thus, by giving this 
complaint, a request is being made to take immediate 
action against the accused persons for demanding 
dowry, giving beatings and threatening me to kill and 
my stridhan be recovered from the accused persons. 
It will be so kind of you.” 
4.	
The plain reading of the aforesaid FIR would indicate that the 
Appellant and his family members are alleged to have demanded 
dowry and thereby caused mental and physical trauma to the First 
Informant. As stated in the FIR, the family of the First Informant had 
spent a large sum at the time of marriage and had also handed 
over her ‘stridhan’ to the Appellant and his family. However, shortly
140
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
after marriage, the Appellant and his family started harassing the 
First Informant on the false pretext that she had failed to discharge 
her duties as a wife and daughter-in-law and also pressurised her 
for some more dowry. The Appellant is alleged to be an alcoholic 
and used to regularly raise his hands on the First Informant and 
treat her inhumanely. Allegedly, upon complaining to the Appellant’s 
father and mother (Accused Nos. 2 & 3 in the FIR), they would take 
the side of their son i.e., the Appellant herein and would pressurize 
the First Informant to get something more towards dowry. 
5.	
The First Informant has further alleged that her sister-in-law (Accused 
No. 4 in the FIR) used to harass her for a diamond set & would 
threaten that failing to get one, she would be driven out of her 
matrimonial home. 
6.	
The First Informant was serving as an Assistant Professor and has 
alleged that the Appellant and his family would keep her entire 
salary. The Appellant would assault her whenever she would ask 
for money, saying that the First Informant should ask her family to 
bear her personal expenses. 
7.	
It is also alleged that the Appellant was having an extra marital 
affair with one another woman, and he would threaten the First 
Informant with dire consequences had she told anyone of his affair. 
The Appellant continued with the extra marital affair for a long period 
& later filed a divorce petition in July
2019 on absolutely false and 
baseless grounds. 
8.	
It is further alleged that during the initial days of the Covid-19 lockdown, 
the Appellant disconnected the water supply at their matrimonial home 
and took away their minor son. In such circumstances, the First 
Informant was left with no option but to leave her matrimonial home 
and return to her parents. Efforts were made for some settlement 
however the Appellant and his family kept on insisting for more dowry 
and also refused to return her stridhan.
9.	
Upon the FIR referred to above being registered, the police carried out 
the investigation & proceeded to file chargesheet dated 13.10.2021, 
only against the Appellant herein. A closure report was filed against 
the remaining 4 accused. The filing of the chargesheet culminated 
in the Criminal Case No. CHI/1856/2021in the court of Judicial 
Magistrate, First Class, Hisar.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
141
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
10.	 The Appellant herein went before the High Court, with a quashing 
petition for the purpose of getting the criminal proceedings quashed. 
The High Court vide its judgment & order dated 05.04.2022 
(‘impugned order’), declined to quash the criminal proceedings in 
exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the “Cr.P.C.”). The High Court 
made the following observations: - 
“I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length 
and have gone through the record carefully. 
The main thrust of the arguments raised by counsel 
for the petitioner is that the complainant had never 
been interested in living in the matrimonial home 
and she kept on pressurizing the petitioner for living 
separately from his family members. In order to achieve 
her objective she kept on causing harassment to the 
petitioner and his family members. However, a perusal 
of the allegations in the FIR would show that the 
petitioner and the family members gave taunting to 
the complainant for lowering down their image in the 
society. Demand of a car was also made. Complainant 
was taunted for not having been incurred sufficient 
expenditure on marriage by her parents. There are 
allegations of beating the complainant by her husband 
and the other family members. It has been specifically 
alleged that the petitioner is an alcoholic and has illicit 
relations with one Vandana
Sharma. 
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law time and 
again regarding exercising the jurisdiction under Section 
482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR. A reference in this 
regard may be made to the law settled in case of 
State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 
335, wherein following parameters have been given:- 
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of 
the various relevant provisions of the Code 
under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law 
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions 
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary 
power under Article 226 of the inherent powers
142
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
under Section 482 of the Code which we have 
extracted and reproduced above, we have 
given the following categories of cases by 
way of illustration wherein such power could 
be exercised either to prevent abuse of the 
process of any court or otherwise to secure the 
ends of justice, though it may not be possible 
to lay down any precise, clearly defined and 
sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines 
or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list 
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power 
should be exercised:- 
(1)	 where the allegations made in the First 
Information Report or the complaint, even 
if they are taken at their face value and 
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie 
constitute any offence or make out a case 
against the accused; 
(2)	 where the allegations in the First 
Information Report and other materials, 
if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not 
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying 
an investigation by police officers under 
Section 156(1) of the Code except under 
an order of a Magistrate within the purview 
of Section 155(2) of the Code; 
(3)	 where the uncontroverted allegations made 
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence 
collected in support of the same do not 
disclose the commission of any offence 
and make out a case against the accused; 
(4)	 where the allegations in the FIR do 
not constitute a cognizable offence but 
constitute only a non-cognizable offence, 
no
investigation is permitted by a police 
officer without an order of a Magistrate 
as contemplated under Section 155(2) of 
the Code;
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
143
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
(5)	 where the allegations made in the FIR or 
complaint are so absurd and inherently 
improbable on the basis of which no 
prudent person can ever reach a just 
conclusion that there is sufficient ground 
for proceeding against the accused; 
(6)	
where there is an express legal bar 
engrafted in any of the provisions of the 
Code or the concerned Act (under which 
a criminal proceeding is instituted) to 
the institution and continuance of the 
proceedings and/or where there is a specific 
provision in the Code or the concerned 
Act, providing efficacious redress for the 
grievance of the aggrieved party; 
(7)	 where a criminal proceeding is 
manifestly attended with mala fide and/
or where the proceeding is maliciously 
instituted with an ulterior motive for 
wreaking vengeance on the accused 
and with a view to spite him due to 
private and personal grudge.” 
Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika 
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 
SCC Online SC 315 has held that quashing of FIR is 
an exception rather than an ordinary rule and the High 
Court should exercise the powers under Section 482 
Cr.P.C. sparingly with circumspection. 
Taking into consideration the above facts and 
circumstances of the present case in the light of 
the law settled, the present case does not fall in the 
category of cases for invoking the inherent powers 
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The parameters laid down 
by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court mandate that in a case 
where from the bare reading of the allegations in 
the FIR no cognizable offence is made out or it has 
been lodged to wreak the vengeance then the High 
Court may intervene. The veracity of the allegations

144
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
levelled by the complainant can be assessed only 
after a thorough investigation and thereafter by the 
Trial Court on the basis of the evidence led before it. 
Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the 
petitioner does not qualify for exercising its jurisdiction 
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Resultantly, the petition being 
devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
11.	 In view of the aforesaid, the Appellant is before this Court with the 
present appeal. 
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
12.	 Mr. Yusuf, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant herein 
made the following submissions: -

●
The Appellant and his family had filed a divorce petition and 
also a domestic violence case against the First Informant in 
2019 and 2020 respectively. As a counter blast to the same, 
the FIR No. 95 of 2021 dated 09.04.2021 came to be lodged 
after a period of more than 11 months from the date the First 
Informant left her matrimonial home and that too, only after the 
service of summons to her in the domestic violence case. No 
plausible explanation has been offered for such delay.
●
The FIR was filed with an oblique motive & by way of vengeance 
towards the Appellant. The First Informant and Appellant were 
married for over 12 years.

●
The allegations in the FIR are too vague and general in nature. 
There is no specific allegation/incident of harassment levelled 
against the Appellant in the FIR. 
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST INFORMANT/
RESPONDENT NO. 2
13.	 Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the 
First Informant herein made the following submissions:

●
The Appellant and his family continuously demanded for 
additional dowry after the marriage. They used to beat the First 
Informant and take away her entire salary.

[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
145
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.

●
After filing of the divorce petition, the Appellant stopped paying 
anything towards her maintenance and also disconnected the 
basic facilities such as water connection etc., leaving her with 
no option but to leave the matrimonial home and return to her 
parents house at Hisar.

●
The Appellant had an affair with another woman. Only with a 
view to save the marriage, she kept quiet and did not inform 
about it to the others.

●
The domestic violence case filed against the First Informant is 
absolutely frivolous and vexatious.
●
The Appellant failed to inform this Court that he had withdrawn 
the divorce proceedings instituted against the First Informant. 
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
14.	 Mr. Chritarth Palli, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 
State (Respondent No. 1 herein) made the following submissions:

●
The Police upon registration of the FIR, conducted a fair 
investigation. On completion of the investigation, the proceedings 
against 4 out of the 5 accused came to be dropped. However, 
having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled, the 
investigating officer thought fit to file chargesheet against the 
Appellant. 
ANALYSIS 
15.	 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 the criminal proceedings 
should be quashed?
16.	 The Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 got married in October 
2008. The couple lived together for more than a decade and in the 
wedlock a child was born in March 2012. 
17.	 We take notice of the fact that the Appellant filed a divorce petition 
in July 2019 on the ground of cruelty. The divorce petition was 
withdrawn as the Appellant was finding it difficult to take care of his 
child, while travelling all the way to Hisar on the dates fixed by the 
Court. The Appellant’s mother had to file a domestic violence case
146
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
against the First Informant in October 2020 under the provisions 
of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 
18.	 The plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet papers indicate 
that the allegations levelled by the First Informant are quite vague, 
general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. 
It is also pertinent to note that in the FIR no specific date or time of 
the alleged offence/offences has been disclosed. Even the police 
thought fit to drop the proceedings against the other members of the 
Appellant’s family. Thus, we are of the view that the FIR lodged by 
the Respondent No. 2 was nothing but a counterblast to the divorce 
petition & also the domestic violence case.
19.	 It is also pertinent to note that the Respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR 
on 09.04.2021, i.e., nearly 2 years after the filing of the divorce petition 
by the Appellant and 6 months after the filing of the domestic violence 
case by her mother-in-law. Thus, the First Informant remained silent 
for nearly 2 years after the divorce petition was filed. With such an 
unexplained delay in filing the FIR, we find that the same was filed 
only to harass the Appellant and his family members. 
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.	 The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for 
the Police Officers, whose powers in that field are unfettered, so long 
as the power to investigate into the cognizable offence is legitimately 
exercised in strict compliance with the provisions under Chapter XII 
of the Cr.P.C.. While exercising powers under Section 482 of the 
Cr.P.C., the court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. 
As noted above, the inherent jurisdiction under the Section, although 
wide, yet should 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
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
147
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone 
courts exist. The authority of the court exists for advancement of 
justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to 
produce injustice, the court has the power to prevent such abuse. 
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.
22.	 Once the investigation is over and chargesheet is filed, the FIR 
pales into insignificance. The court, thereafter, owes a duty to 
look into all the materials collected by the investigating agency in 
the form of chargesheet. There is nothing in the words of Section 
482 of the Cr.P.C. 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 would be a travesty
of 
justice to hold that the proceedings initiated against a person can 
be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has materialized 
into a chargesheet. 
23.	 In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866, this 
Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power 
can, and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: - 
(i)	
where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar 
against the institution or continuance e.g. want of 
sanction;
ii)	
where the allegations in the first information report 
or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in 
their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii)	 where the allegations constitute an offence, but there 
is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced 
clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
148
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
24.	 This Court, in the case of State of A.P. v. Vangaveeti Nagaiah, 
reported in (2009) 12 SCC 466 : AIR 2009 SC 2646, interpreted 
clause (iii) referred to above, observing thus: -
“6. In dealing with the last category, it is important to 
bear in mind the distinction between a case where there 
is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which 
is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, 
and a case where there is legal evidence which, on 
appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. 
When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the 
Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon 
an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable 
or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it 
accusation would not be sustained. That is the function 
of the trial Judge. Judicial process no doubt should 
not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless 
harassment Court should be circumspect and judicious 
in exercising discretion and should take all relevant 
facts and circumstances into consideration before 
issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the 
hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta 
to harass any person needlessly. At the same time 
the Section is not an instrument handed over to an 
accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about 
its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under 
Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases 
where the High
Court may exercise its power under 
it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of 
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends 
of justice were set out in some detail by this Court 
in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 
335]. A note of caution was, however, added that the 
power should be exercised sparingly and that too in 
rarest of rare cases.
The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as 
follows:
"(1)	 Where the allegations made in the first information 
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
149
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
their face value and accepted in their entirety do 
not prima facie constitute any offence or make out 
a case against the accused.
(2)	 Where the allegations in the first information report 
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an 
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) 
of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate 
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3)	 Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the 
F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in 
support of the same do not disclose the commission 
of any offence and make out a case against the 
accused.
(4)	 Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute 
a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by 
a Police Officer without an order of a Magistrate as 
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5)	 Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint 
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the 
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach 
a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for 
proceeding against the accused.
(6)	 Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any 
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act 
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the 
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/
or where there is a specific provision in the
Code or 
the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for 
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7)	 Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended 
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is 
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for 
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view 
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
150
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
25.	 If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and 
sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances 
of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the 
court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in 
the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether 
there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are 
made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a 
criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from 
a matrimonial dispute. 
26.	 In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2010 Criminal 
Law Journal 4303 (1), this Court observed the following: -
“28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately 
matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All 
the courts in our country including this court are flooded with 
matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent 
and unrest in the family life of a large number of people 
of the society.
29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases 
emanating from section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 
which reads as under:
“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a 
woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, 
being the husband or the relative of the husband 
of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty 
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term 
which may extend to three years and shall also 
be
liable to fine.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, 
‘cruelty’ means:
(a)	 any wilful conduct which is of such a nature 
as is likely to drive the woman to commit 
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger 
to life, limb or health (whether mental or 
physical) of the woman; or
(b)	 harassment of the woman where such 
harassment is with a view to coercing
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
151
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
her or any person related to her to meet 
any unlawful demand for any property or 
valuable security or is on account of failure 
by her or any person related to her to meet 
such demand.”
30. It is a matter of common experience that most of 
these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in 
the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper 
deliberations. We come across a large number of such 
complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with 
oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the 
number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also 
a matter of serious concern.
31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social 
responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber 
of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure 
that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not 
be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the 
complaints are filed either on their advice or with their 
concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong 
to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions 
and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a 
basic human problem and must make serious endeavour 
to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of 
that human problem. They must discharge their duties to 
the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace 
and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members 
of
the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should 
not lead to multiple cases.
32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint 
the implications and consequences are not properly 
visualized by the complainant that such complaint can 
lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to 
the complainant, accused and his close relations.
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and 
punish the guilty and protect the innocent To find out the 
truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. 
The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate
152
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the 
conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real 
truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious 
in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic 
realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial 
cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close 
relations 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 complaint are required to be scrutinized 
with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that 
long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony 
and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is 
also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by 
the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations 
had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the 
chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process 
of suffering is extremely long and painful.
34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe 
that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by 
the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge 
that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected 
in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over 
implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.
35. The criminal
trials lead to immense sufferings for all 
concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not 
be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. 
Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have 
not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous 
social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness 
of the society. It is high time that the legislature must 
take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make 
suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the 
legislature to take into consideration the informed public 
opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and 
make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. 
We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment 
to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, 
Government of India who may place it before the Hon’ble
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
153
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Minister for Law and Justice to take appropriate steps in 
the larger interest of the society.”
(Emphasis supplied)
27.	 In the aforesaid context, we may refer to and rely upon the decision of 
this Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (Criminal 
Appeal No. 1277 of 2014, decided on 2nd July, 2014). In the said 
case, the petitioner, apprehending arrest in a case under Section 
498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, 
prayed for anticipatory bail before this Court, having failed to obtain 
the same from the High Court. In that context, the observations made 
by this Court in paras 6, 7 and 8 respectively are worth taking note 
of. They are reproduced below: -
“6. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in 
recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered 
in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced 
with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment 
to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. 
The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable 
offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the 
provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by 
disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the 
husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. 
In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and 
grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad 
for decades are
arrested. Crime in India 2012 Statistics 
published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of 
Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over 
India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-
A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a 
quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were 
women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters 
of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. 
Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the 
crimes committed under Penal Code, 1860. It accounts for 
4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of 
penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and 
hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 
498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate
154
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many 
as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current 
estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.
7. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars 
forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is 
a battle between the law makers and the police and it 
seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson 
implicit and embodied in the Cr.PC. It has not come out of 
its colonial image despite six decades of independence, it 
is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression 
and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for 
caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been 
emphasized time and again by Courts but has not yielded 
desired result. Power to arrest greatly contributes to its 
arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check 
it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative 
sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and 
then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become 
a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or 
act with oblique motive.
8. Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this Court 
in a large number of judgments emphasized the need to 
maintain a balance between individual liberty and societal 
order while exercising the power of arrest. Police officers 
make arrest as they believe that they possess the power 
to do
so. As the arrest curtails freedom, brings humiliation 
and casts scars forever, we feel differently. We believe 
that no arrest should be made only because the offence 
is non-bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for 
the police officers to do so. The existence of the power 
to arrest is one thing, the justification for the exercise of 
it is quite another. Apart from power to arrest, the police 
officers must be able to justify the reasons thereof. No 
arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere 
allegation of commission of an offence made against a 
person. It would be prudent and wise for a police officer 
that no arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction 
reached after some investigation as to the genuineness of 
the allegation. Despite this legal position, the Legislature
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
155
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
did not find any improvement. Numbers of arrest have not 
decreased. Ultimately, the Parliament had to intervene 
and on the recommendation of the 177th Report of the 
Law Commission submitted in the year 2001, Section 41 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.), in 
the present form came to be enacted. It is interesting to 
note that such a recommendation was made by the Law 
Commission in its 152nd and 154th Report submitted as 
back in the year 1994. …”
(Emphasis Supplied)
28.	 In the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P. reported in 
(2012) 10 SCC 741, this Court observed as under: -
“19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents 
of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no 
allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji 
Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have 
been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the 
names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute 
without allegation of active involvement in the matter would 
not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking 
the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency 
to involve the entire family members of the household in 
the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute 
specially if it happens soon after the wedding.
20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt 
observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao 
v. L.H.V.
Prasad reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein 
also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the 
High Court should have quashed the complaint arising 
out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members 
had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was 
quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein 
with which we entirely agree that:
“there has been an outburst of matrimonial 
dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred 
ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable 
the young couple to settle down in life and live
156
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes 
suddenly erupt which often assume serious 
proportions resulting in 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 reasons which 
need not be mentioned here for not encouraging 
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may 
ponder over their defaults and terminate the 
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.”
The view taken by the judges in this matter 
was that the courts would not encourage such 
disputes.
21. In yet another case reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 : AIR 
2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana 
it was observed that there is no doubt that the object of 
introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the 
Penal Code, 1860 was to prevent the torture to a woman 
by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 
498A was added with a view to punish the husband and 
his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her 
relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the 
proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498A 
against the husband
and his relatives and subsequently 
she has settled her disputes with her husband and his 
relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual 
divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High 
Court would not be proper as it would prevent woman from 
settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends 
of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 
320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of 
quashing. It would however be a different matter depending
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
157
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether 
to exercise or not to exercise such a power.”
(Emphasis supplied)
29.	 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 as well as 
the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the High 
Court was justified in not embarking upon an enquiry as regards the 
truthfulness or reliability of the allegations in exercise of its inherent 
power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as once there are allegations 
disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence then whether they 
are true or false should be left to the trial court to decide. 
30.	 In the aforesaid context, we should look into the category 7 as 
indicated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The 
category 7 as laid reads thus: -
“(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended 
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously 
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance 
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private 
and personal grudge.”
31.	 We are of the view that the category 7 referred to above should be 
taken into consideration and applied in a case like the one on hand a 
bit liberally. If the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement 
by the complainant of her husband and his close relatives is with an 
oblique motive then even if the FIR and the chargesheet disclose the 
commission of a cognizable offence the Court
with a view to doing 
substantial justice should read in between the lines the oblique motive 
of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter. If the 
submission canvassed by the counsel appearing for the Respondent 
No. 2 and the State is to be accepted mechanically then in our 
opinion the very conferment of the inherent power by the Cr.P.C. 
upon the High Court would be rendered otiose. We are saying so for 
the simple reason that if the wife on account of matrimonial disputes 
decides to harass her husband and his family members then the 
first thing, she would ensure is to see that proper allegations are 
levelled in the First Information Report. Many times the services of 
professionals are availed for the same and once the complaint is 
drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out 
any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However, that does
158
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in 
helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are allegations 
in the First Information Report and the chargesheet papers disclose 
the commission of a cognizable offence. If the allegations alone as 
levelled, more particularly in the case like the one on hand, are to be 
looked into or considered then why the investigating agency thought 
fit to file a closure report against the other co-accused? There is no 
answer to this at the end of the learned counsel appearing for the 
State. We say so, because allegations have been levelled not only 
against the Appellant herein but even against his parents, brother 
& sister. If that be so, then why the police did not deem fit to file 
chargesheet against the other co-accused? It appears that even the 
investigating agency was convinced that the FIR was nothing but 
an outburst arising from a matrimonial dispute.
32.	 Many times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife 
make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of salvaging the situation 
and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action 
either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the 
husband and his family members, brings about complete destruction 
of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that comes in the mind 
of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police, as if the 
Police is the
panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches up 
to the Police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation 
between the spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a 
sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. 
Tolerance to each other’s fault to a certain bearable extent has to 
be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are 
mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of 
proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven. 
The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from 
that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each 
particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental 
conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very 
technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous 
for the very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes the 
main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom 
in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the 
marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their 
children. Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
159
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
of the children is concerned. The only reason why we are saying so 
is that instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of 
criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for each 
other. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment 
by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The 
degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. However, the 
Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort 
and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The 
Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the 
husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the 
instigation of her parents or relatives or friends. In all cases, where 
wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the 
IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without 
Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, 
which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. 
Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in 
day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty.
33.	 Lord Denning, in Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky, (1950) 2 All ER 398 
observed as under: -
“When the conduct consists of direct action by one against 
the other, it can then properly be said to be aimed at the 
other, even though there is no desire to injure the other or 
to inflict misery on him.
Thus, it may consist of a display 
of temperament, emotion, or perversion whereby the one 
gives vent to his or her own feelings, not intending to injure 
the other, but making the other the object-the butt-at whose 
expense the emotion is relieved.”
When there is no intent to injure, they are not to be 
regarded as cruelty unless they are plainly and distinctly 
proved to cause injury to health……..when the conduct 
does not consist of direct action against the other, but 
only of misconduct indirectly affecting him or her, such 
as drunkenness, gambling, or crime, then it can only 
properly be said to be aimed at the other when it is done, 
not only for the gratification of the selfish desires of the 
one who does it, but also in some part with an intention to 
injure the other or to inflict misery on him or her. Such an 
intention may readily be inferred from the fact that it is the
160
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
natural consequence of his conduct, especially when the 
one spouse knows, or it has already been brought to his 
notice, what the consequences will be, and nevertheless 
he does it, careless and indifferent whether it distresses 
the other spouse or not The Court is, however not bound 
to draw the inference. The presumption that a person 
intends the natural consequences of his acts is one that 
may not must-be drawn. If in all the circumstances it is 
not the correct inference, then it should not be drawn. In 
cases of this kind, if there is no desire to injure or inflict 
misery on the other, the conduct only becomes cruelty 
when the justifiable remonstrances of the innocent party 
provoke resentment on the part of the other, which evinces 
itself in actions or words actually or physically directed at 
the innocent party.”
34.	 What constitutes cruelty in matrimonial matters has been well 
explained in American Jurisprudence 2nd edition Vol. 24 page 206. 
It reads thus: -
“The question whether the misconduct complained of 
constitute cruelty and the like for divorce purposes is 
determined primarily by its effect upon the particular person 
complaining of the acts. The question is not whether 
the conduct would be cruel to a reasonable person or a 
person of average or normal sensibilities, but whether it 
would have that effect upon the aggrieved spouse. That 
which may be cruel to one person may be laughed off by
another, and what may not be cruel to an individual under 
one set of circumstances may be extreme cruelty under 
another set of circumstances.”
(Emphasis supplied)
35.	 In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in Mahmood Ali & 
Ors. v. State of U.P & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950, authored by 
one of us (J.B. Pardiwala, J.), the legal principle applicable apropos 
Section 482 of the CrPC was examined. Therein, it was observed 
that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either 
the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC or the extraordinary 
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the 
criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
161
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the 
ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, 
the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little 
more closely. It was further observed that it will not be 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 as, 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, to try and read between the lines.	
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. 
37.	 Before we close the matter, we would like to invite the attention of the 
Legislature to the observations made by this Court almost 14 years 
ago in Preeti Gupta (supra) as referred to in para 26 of this judgment. 
We once again reproduce paras 34 and 35 respectively as under: 
“34.
Before parting with this case, we would like to observe 
that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by 
the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge 
that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected 
in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over 
implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.
35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all 
concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not 
be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. 
Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have 
not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous 
social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness 
of the society. It is high time that the legislature must 
take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make 
suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the 
legislature to take into consideration the informed public 
opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and
162
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. 
We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment 
to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, 
Government of India who may place it before the Hon’ble 
Minister for Law and Justice to take appropriate steps in 
the larger interest of the society.”
38.	 In the aforesaid context, we looked into Sections 85 and 86 
respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which is to come 
into force with effect from 1st July, 2024 so as to ascertain whether 
the Legislature has seriously looked into the suggestions of this Court 
as made in Preeti Gupta (supra). Sections 85 and 86 respectively 
are reproduced herein below:
“Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting 
her to cruelty.
85. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the 
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty 
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which 
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Cruelty defined.
86. For the purposes of section 85, “cruelty” means— 
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely 
to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave 
injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or 
physical) of the woman; or 
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is 
with a view to coercing her or any person related to her 
to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable 
security
or is on account of failure by her or any person 
related to her to meet such demand.”
39.	 The aforesaid is nothing but verbatim reproduction of Section 498A 
of the IPC. The only difference is that the Explanation to Section 
498A of the IPC, is now by way of a separate provision, i.e., Section 
86 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 
40.	 We request the Legislature to look into the issue as highlighted 
above taking into consideration the pragmatic realities and consider

[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
163
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
making necessary changes in Sections 85 and 86 respectively of 
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, before both the new provisions 
come into force.
41.	 In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The 
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby 
set aside. 
42.	 The proceedings of CHI/1856/2021 arising from FIR No. 95 of 2021 
dated 09.04.2021, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First 
Class, Hisar are hereby quashed.
43.	 Pending application(s) if any shall be disposed of. 
44.	 We direct the Registry to send one copy each of this judgment to the 
Union Law Secretary and Union Home Secretary, to the Government 
of India who may place it before the Hon’ble Minister for Law and 
Justice as well as the Hon’ble Minister for Home.
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Result of the case: 
Appeal allowed.