Himachal Pradesh High Court: While deciding whether an first information report (FIR) filed by the wife against her husband and in-laws (collectively “petitioners”) under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) should be quashed, particularly when the parties had already dissolved their marriage by mutual consent, a Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Sharma, J., held that where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute the offence alleged, and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, the Court is justified in quashing such proceedings. Accordingly, the Court quashed the Section 498-A IPC FIR after mutual divorce as no cruelty or dowry demand was made out against the petitioners and acquitted them.
Also Read: Kar HC: Section 498-A IPC FIR Against husband, family quashed
Background
The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 11 October 2021 as per Hindu rites and customs. The wife alleged that on 27 February 2022, her husband and her in-laws came to her parental house but did not take her back with them and assured that she could return to her matrimonial house after residing with her parents for some time. When no one came to take her back, she reached her matrimonial home which was found locked. She also alleged that her in-laws had changed their house and her husband was residing with his maternal uncle in Shimla. She stated that her belongings were in possession of her in-laws, and based on all this, an FIR was registered.
After completion of investigation, the police presented a challan but during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties approached the Family Court and obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). The husband and his family thereafter approached the High Court and filed a petition seeking quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings.
The petitioners contended that at the time of passing of decree of dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent, the wife had categorically stated before the Family Court that the parties had amicably settled their dispute and nothing remained to be given or taken inter se them. It was further argued that a perusal of the FIR would reveal that no case under Section 498-A IPC was made out against the petitioners, and no complaint was ever made that dowry was demanded by the petitioners, rather the case was that the wife was duped and cheated.
On the other hand, the wife contended that the dissolution of marriage would have no bearing upon the criminal case. It was submitted that the petitioners had also filed an application for discharge before the competent court on the same grounds, but the prayer was rejected, and since they did not challenge the order refusing to discharge them, the present petition was not maintainable. It was further submitted that any statement made by the wife in the divorce proceedings to the effect that nothing remains to be given or taken between the parties, might not be sufficient to discharge the petitioners.
Also Read: Girlfriend not ‘relative’ under S. 498-A RPC: J&K HC
Analysis
The Court relied on State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, wherein it was observed that under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) [now Section 528, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], the High Court is entitled to quash the proceedings, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
The Court also referred to Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, where it was reiterated that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), to quash the proceedings against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charge, but such power must always be used with caution, care and circumspection. It was further observed that:
“To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant.”
The Court emphasised that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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, the High Court while exercising its inherent power can proceed to quash the proceedings.
The Court relied on Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706, wherein the Supreme Court, while considering the scope of inherent power of the High Court, observed 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.”
The Court opined that the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS) to quash criminal proceedings, in cases, where the allegations made in the FIR 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.
The Court noted that the parties were unable to resolve their dispute despite there being intervention of elder members of their respective families and of their own volition they decided to get their marriage dissolved by way of mutual consent. The Court summoned the parties on 2 April 2026, and the wife stated that though she had no objection in quashing the FIR, but since her belongings, including her gold ornaments, were yet not returned, she wanted to pursue the criminal case. She alleged an outside Court settlement between the parties but could not adduce any documents in support of the same.
The Court read the FIR and observed that the wife’s allegations did not disclose any demand of dowry. The Court noted that the State filed the status report, wherein facts otherwise given in final report were reproduced, which if read in its entirety, did not suggest a case against the petitioners under Section 498-A IPC. The Court observed that the FIR did not suggest that the petitioners ever made any demand of dowry or at any point of time they coerced or harassed the wife for bringing less dowry, rather her case was that she was not taken back from her parental home. Regarding the matrimonial home, it was found that it was sold by the petitioners, but the Court observed that such sale cannot be construed to be an act of demanding dowry.
The Court opined that since the basic ingredients of Section 498-A IPC were totally missing, coupled with the fact that parties had already settled their matter by getting their marriage dissolved, no fruitful purpose would be served in case the criminal proceedings initiated at the behest of the wife were allowed to sustain, and it would rather amount to putting the petitioners to ordeal of protracted trial, which otherwise, in all probabilities, was bound to fail.
Decision
Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR along with all consequential proceedings pending before the trial court, and the petitioners were acquitted of all the charges framed against them.
[Rahul Dadhwal v. State of H.P., Cr.MMO No.1083 of 2025, decided on 5-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Yug Singhal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Rajan Kahol and Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Ravi Chauhan and Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, Abhimanyu Rathour and Poonam Gehlot, Advocates.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
