2025:HHC:12651
Cr. MMO No. 1300 of 2024
Reserved on: 22.04.2025
Date of Decision: 06.05.2025.
Satyabhan Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri,
Advocate.
For the Respondents/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria,
Additional Advocate General.
quashing of FIR No. 16 of 2021, dated 13.6.2021, registered for the
at Women Police Station, Una, District Una, H.P.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
Customs. Her parents fulfilled all the demands made by the
refrigerator, washing machine and car in the dowry. The
informant was the only daughter of her parents. Her father was
posted in the Punjab Forest Department. He was unable to
provide the articles demanded by the petitioners. The petitioners
started abusing and quarrelling with the informant. The
12.00 PM and asked her to bring ₹6.00 lacs to buy a Swift car. The
unable to provide any dowry. The petitioners and the informant's
husband gave beatings to her. The informant sustained multiple
injuries. The petitioners threatened to kill the informant in case
their demands were not met. The informant was compelled to
commit suicide by the acts of the petitioners. She informed the
police, and the police officials visited the spot. The police
registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. A charge
investigation.
3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and the
false. The Investigating Agency had not verified the petitioners'
version. The petitioners had preferred an application before the
threat to commit suicide. The matter was compromised between
the parties. The police visited the spot on 11.6.2021 and recorded
the statement of the informant. The matter was sent to the CDPO,
Domestic Violence Act. The informant submitted another
application, and FIR No. 16 of 2021 was registered. The informant
and no demand for dowry was ever made from her. The contents
commission of any offence. The criminal proceedings were
upon the petitioners. The informant attempted to commit suicide
the hospital. This shows the conduct of the informant. The
contents of Entry No. 51, dated 11.6.2021, falsify the allegations
made in the FIR. The allegations are vague and do not constitute
the commission of any cognizable offence. Therefore, it was
4. The State/respondent has filed a status report
investigation. The informant sustained multiple injuries. She was
be simple. The petitioners are not returning the informant's
stridhan. A charge sheet has been filed before the Court, and the
matter was listed for prosecution evidence on 26.3.2025.
5. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned
Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
6. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the
were falsely implicated. The allegations made by the petitioners,
commission of any cognizable offence. The continuation of the
proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.
7. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate
in the FIR constitute the commission of a cognizable offence. The
petitioners. The matter is listed for prosecution evidence, and this
FIR in these circumstances. Therefore, he prayed that the present
8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC
"7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it
is now more or less well settled as regards the principles to
be applied by the court. In this regard, one may refer to the
decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Court has
summarised some of the principles under which
FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the
following words:
2025:HHC:12651
"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 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give 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 channelised 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 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 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.
2025:HHC:12651
(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 a
private and personal grudge." (emphasis added)
8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6) would
be of relevance to us in this case.
In clause (1) it has been mentioned that 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, then the
FIR or the complaint can be quashed.
As per clause (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 dated by the Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and in
such a situation, the FIR can be quashed.
Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an
express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of
the CrPC or the concerned Act under which the criminal
2025:HHC:12651
proceedings are instituted, such proceedings can be
quashed."
10. This position was reiterated in Ajay Malik v. State of
Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, wherein it was observed:
"8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its
extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may
issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to
secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are
neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory
provision. However, given the broad and profound
nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it
sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are
embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing
the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process
or where intervention is essential to uphold the
ends of justice.
9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the
course of several decades, has laid down the principles and
guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing
criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-
empting the Prosecution from building its case before the
Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia,
contemplate the following situations : (i) the criminal
complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR
represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie
offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v.)
the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations;
and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the
dispute amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335)
11. The present petition is to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2025:HHC:12651
12. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 286:
2009 SCC OnLine SC 1693 that the Court has to see that particulars
of the offences committed by every accused and the role played by
the accused in committing the offence are given in the complaint
made to the police. It was observed: -
"9. To lodge a proper complaint, the mere mention of the
sections and the language of those sections is not the be-all
and end-all of the matter. What is required to be brought to
the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence
committed by each and every accused and the role played by
each and every accused in committing that offence.
10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly
vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed
what offence, and what is the exact role played by these
appellants is in the commission of the offence. There could
be said that something is against Rajesh, as the allegations
are made against him more precisely, but he is no more
and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it
would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the
prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh,
the present appellants herein, on the basis of a vague and
general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of
the appellants." (Emphasis supplied)
13. Similarly, it was held in Abhishek v. State of M.P., 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1083: 2023 INSC 779 that the tendency of false
implication by way of general omnibus allegations, if left
unchecked, would result in the misuse of the process of law. It
was observed:
2025:HHC:12651
"13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a
petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against
them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are
neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty
abound on this score. We may now take note of some
decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan
Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this
Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where
the High Court had refused to quash an FIR registered for
various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that
the foremost issue that required determination was whether
allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus
allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court
referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed
over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased
tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial
disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of
general omnibus allegations made in the course of
matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse
of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found
that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws
by the wife, and it was held that allowing their prosecution
in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws
would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also
noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal,
would inflict severe scars upon the accused, and such an
exercise ought to be discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667],
this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the
husband and all his immediate relations is also not
uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It
was observed that 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, such as allegations of harassment by the
husband's close relations, who were living in different cities
and never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided, would add an entirely different
2025:HHC:12651
complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised
with great care and circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184],
this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory
provisions and the language thereof for lodging a
complaint is not the 'be all and end all' of the matter, as
what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the
particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused
and the role played by each and every accused in the
commission of that offence. These observations were made
in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving
Section 498A IPC." (Emphasis supplied)
14. It was held in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 759:2024 INSC 369 that asking a person to face criminal
allegations without any specific instance of criminal misconduct
amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. It was observed:
"18. The plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet
papers indicates 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 Appellants' family. Thus, we are of the
view that the FIR lodged by Respondent No. 2 was nothing
but a counterblast to the divorce petition & also the
domestic violence case.
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 an
abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to
subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to 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
2025:HHC:12651
sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal
charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a
matrimonial dispute." (Emphasis supplied)
15. It was further held that in matrimonial disputes, the
parents, including the close relatives, make a mountain out of a
molehill, and every matrimonial conduct amounting to nuisance
does not constitute cruelty. It was observed: -
"32. Many times, the parents, including the close relatives
of the wife, make a mountain out of a molehill. Instead of
salvaging the situation and making every possible
endeavour 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 the
destruction of the marriage over trivial issues. The first
thing that comes to mind for the wife, her parents and her
relatives is the Police as if the Police is the panacea of all
evil. No sooner does the matter reach the Police than 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 of each other's faults, to a certain
bearable extent, has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty
quibbles and 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 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 marriage. In matrimonial disputes, the
main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with
such venom in their hearts that they do not think even for a
second that if the marriage would come to an end, then
2025:HHC:12651
what would be the effect on their children? Divorce plays a
very dubious role so far as the upbringing 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 to ransom so that he
could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her
parents, relatives or friends. In all cases where the 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
and quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-
day married life, may also not amount to cruelty"
16. Similarly, it was held in Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v.
State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 127: 2024 (2) SCR 252 that the
phenomenon of false implication by a general omnibus allegation
in the case of a matrimonial dispute is not unknown to the Court.
When the allegations are general and omnibus, the prosecution
should not be continued. It was observed: -
"14. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is
significant merit in the submissions of the Learned
Counsel for the Appellants. A bare perusal of the complaint,
statement of witnesses and the charge sheet shows that the
allegations against the Appellants are wholly general and
2025:HHC:12651
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 (2022) 6 SCC 599, 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 and noted that such a
situation, if left unchecked, would result in the abuse of the
process of law.
xxxx
17. Considering the dicta in Mahmood Ali (supra), we find
that the High Court, in this case, has failed to exercise due
care and has mechanically permitted the criminal
proceedings to continue despite specifically finding that
the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. The
Appellants herein approached the High Court on inter
alia grounds that the proceedings were re-initiated on
vexatious grounds and even highlighted the
commencement of divorce proceedings by Respondent No.
2. In these peculiar circumstances, the High Court had a
duty to consider the allegations with great care and
circumspection so as to protect against the danger of
unjust prosecution."
17. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2621, that general and vague allegations of cruelty
2025:HHC:12651
made against the husband and his relatives are not sufficient to
constitute cruelty. It was observed: -
"10.1 The tendency to make general, vague, and omnibus
allegations is noticed by this Court in many decisions.
In Usha Chakraborty v. State of W.B. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90,
this court observed that:
"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 do 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
allegations against the appellants herein in respect
of the aforesaid offences. The factual position thus
would reveal that the genesis as well as the purpose
of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid
incident, and further that the dispute involved is
essentially of a civil nature. The appellants and the
respondents have given a cloak of a criminal offence
in the issue..."
10.2 Similarly, dealing with allegations lacking in
particulars and details, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti (2009) 10
SCC 184, 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
2025:HHC:12651
that the ornaments were sometimes 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."
xxxx
12. The complaint also refers to a small incident where the
complainant's brother accompanied her to the
matrimonial house when 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, and her 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. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 127, 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
2025:HHC:12651
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 and noted that such a situation, if
left unchecked, would result in the abuse of the
process of law."
xxxx
13.1 In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599,
this Court noticed the injustice that may be caused when
parties are forced to go through the 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
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 with terminating her pregnancy".
Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations
have been made against either of the appellants
herein, i.e. none of the appellants has 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
2025:HHC:12651
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."
18. This position was reiterated in Dara Lakshmi Narayana
v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682, wherein it was
observed:
18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations
made by respondent No. 2 are vague and omnibus. Other
than claiming that appellant No. 1 harassed her and that
appellant Nos. 2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent
No. 2 has not provided any specific details or described any
particular instance of harassment. She has also not
mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the
alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks
concrete and precise allegations.
19. This position was reiterated in Geddam Jhansi v. State
of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263, wherein it was observed:
"31. Invoking criminal process is a serious matter with
penal consequences involving coercive measures, which
can be permitted only when the specific act(s) which
constitute offences punishable under the Penal Code or any
other penal statute are alleged or attributed to the accused
and a prima facie case is made out. It applies with equal
force when criminal laws are invoked in domestic disputes.
Criminalising domestic disputes without specific
2025:HHC:12651
allegations and credible materials to support the same may
have disastrous consequences for the institution of family,
which is built on the premise of love, affection, cordiality
and mutual trust. The institution of family constitutes the
core of human society. Domestic relationships, such as
those between family members, are guided by deeply
ingrained social values and cultural expectations. These
relationships are often viewed as sacred, demanding a
higher level of respect, commitment, and emotional
investment compared to other social or professional
associations. For the aforesaid reason, the preservation of
family relationships has always been emphasised. Thus,
when family relationships are sought to be brought within
the ambit of criminal proceedings, rupturing the family
bond, courts should be circumspect and judicious and
should allow invocation of the criminal process only when
there are specific allegations with supporting materials
which clearly constitute criminal offences.
32. We have to keep in mind that in the context of
matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as such in
the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic
violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other
members of the family who do not come to the rescue of
the complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged
incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itself
constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts
attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and
relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to
exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily
mean that such domestic disputes should be given the
colour of criminality.
33. It goes without saying that genuine cases of cruelty and
violence in the domestic sphere, which do happen, ought to
be handled with utmost sensitivity. Domestic violence
typically happens within the four walls of the house and
not in the public gaze. Therefore, such violence is not
noticed by the public at large, except perhaps by the
immediate neighbours. Thus, providing visible evidence by
2025:HHC:12651
the victim of domestic violence may not be easily
forthcoming and producing direct evidence may be hard
and arduous, which does not necessarily mean that
domestic violence does not occur. In fact, to deal with this
pernicious phenomenon, stringent statutes like the
Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been
enacted with a very expansive meaning and scope of what
amounts to domestic violence. Since violence perpetrated
within the domestic sphere by close relatives is now
criminalised, entailing serious consequences on the
perpetrators, the courts have to be careful while dealing
with such cases by examining whether there are specific
allegations with instances against the perpetrators and not
generalised allegations. The purpose and mandate of the
law to protect the victims of domestic violence is of
paramount importance, and as such, a balance has to be
struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are brought to
book, all the family members or relatives are not
indiscriminately brought within the criminal net in a
sweeping manner.
34. For a matrimonial relationship which is founded on the
basis of cordiality and trust to turn sour to an extent to
make a partner hurl allegations of domestic violence and
harassment against the other partner, would normally not
happen at the spur of the moment and such acrimonious
relationship would develop only in course of time.
Accordingly, such a situation would be the culmination of a
series of acts which turn, otherwise, an amicable
relationship, into a fractured one. Thus, in such cases
involving allegations of domestic violence or harassment,
there would normally be a series of offending acts, which
would be required to be spelt out by the complainant
against the perpetrators in specific terms to rope such
perpetrators in the criminal proceedings sought to be
initiated against them. Thus, mere general allegations of
harassment without pointing out the specifics against such
perpetrators would not suffice, as is the case in respect of
the present appellants.
2025:HHC:12651
35. We are, thus, of the view that in criminal cases
relating to domestic violence, the complaints and
charges should be specific, as far as possible, as
against each and every member of the family who is
accused of such offences and sought to be prosecuted,
as otherwise, it may amount to misuse of the stringent
criminal process by indiscriminately dragging all the
members of the family. There may be situations where
some of the family members or relatives may turn a
blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated on
the victim and may not extend any helping hand to the
victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are
also perpetrators of domestic violence unless the
circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and
instigation. Hence, implicating all such relatives
without making specific allegations and attributing
offending acts to them and proceeding against them
without prima facie evidence that they were complicit
and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of
domestic violence would amount to abuse of the
process of law."
20. In the present case, it was specifically mentioned in
the complaint made to the police that the petitioners had given
beatings to the informant on 11.6.2021 at 12.00 PM. They
demanded ₹6.00 lacs to enable the informant's husband to
purchase the Swift Car. The informant's medical examination
revealed simple injuries on her person. The correctness or
otherwise of these allegations is to be seen during the trial,
however, it cannot be said, at this stage, that no specific
allegation was made against the petitioners.
2025:HHC:12651
21. It was submitted that the allegations are false, which
is evident from the fact that no such allegations were made in the
statement made to the police and were not recorded in the
general diary. The attention of the Court was invited to the
contents of the entries in the daily diary; however, it is not
permissible for this Court to compare the allegations in the
general diary to the allegations made in the FIR to determine
whether there is some improvement or not because this Court
cannot determine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR while exercising inherent jurisdiction. This
position was laid down in Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024
SCC OnLine SC 643, wherein it was held: -
"13. As has already been observed hereinabove, the Court
would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the stage of
quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. However, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, if
taken at their face value, must disclose the commission of
an offence and make out a case against the accused. At the
cost of repetition, in the present case, the allegations made
in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at their face value, do
not disclose the commission of an offence or make out a
case against the accused. We are of the considered view that
the present case would fall under Category-3 of the
categories enumerated by this Court in the case of Bhajan
Lal (supra).
2025:HHC:12651
14. We may gainfully refer to the observations of this Court
in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi),
Department of Home (2019) 11 SCC 706: 2018 INSC 1060:
"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, the petition for
quashing of the 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 [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7
SCC 59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23]. In Joseph Salvaraj
A. [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC
59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this Court while deciding the
question of whether the High Court could entertain
the Section 482 petition for quashing of FIR when the
charge-sheet was filed by the police during the
pendency of the Section 482 petition, observed: (SCC
p. 63, para 16)
"16. Thus, the general conspectus of the
various sections under which the appellant is
being charged and is to be prosecuted would
show that the same is not made out even prima
facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the
charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single
Judge [Joesph Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007
SCC OnLine Guj 365] could have still examined
whether the offences alleged to have been
committed by the appellant were prima facie
made out from the complainant's FIR, charge-
sheet, documents, etc. or not."
22. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2025) 1 SCC 392:
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1894 that the Court, while exercising
2025:HHC:12651
jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, cannot conduct a mini-
trial. It was observed at page 397:
"17. This Court, in a series of judgments, has held that
while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court is not
supposed to hold a mini-trial. A profitable reference can be
made to the judgment in CBI v. Aryan Singh [CBI v. Aryan
Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379]. The
relevant paragraph from the judgment is extracted
hereunder: (SCC paras 6-7)
6. ... As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of
discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,
while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the
Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial. ...
7. ... At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising
the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court has very
limited jurisdiction and is required to consider 'whether
any sufficient material is available to proceed further
against the accused for which the accused is required to
be tried or not'."
23. A similar view was taken in Dineshbhai Chandubhai
Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104: (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683:
2018 SCC OnLine SC 6, wherein it was observed at page 111:
"29 [Ed.: Paras 29 and 30 corrected vide Official
Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./2/2018 dated 31-1-
2018.]. The High Court, in our view, failed to see the extent
of its jurisdiction, which it possesses to exercise while
examining the legality of any FIR complaining commission
of several cognizable offences by the accused persons. In
order to examine as to whether the factual contents of the
FIR disclose any prima facie cognizable offences or not, the
High Court cannot act like an investigating agency and nor
can it exercise the powers like an appellate court. The
2025:HHC:12651
question, in our opinion, was required to be examined
keeping in view the contents of the FIR and prima facie
material, if any, requiring no proof.
30 [Ed.: Paras 29 and 30 corrected vide Official
Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./2/2018 dated 31-1-2018.] . At
this stage, the High Court could not appreciate the
evidence, nor could it draw its own inferences from the
contents of the FIR and the material relied on. It was more
so when the material relied on was disputed by the
complainants and vice versa. In such a situation, it
becomes the job of the investigating authority at such
stage to probe and then of the court to examine the
questions once the charge sheet is filed, along with such
material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be
placed on such material.
31. In our considered opinion, once the court finds that the
FIR does disclose the prima facie commission of any
cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the
investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to
unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure
prescribed in the Code.
32. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into
the minutest details in relation to every aspect of the case
and devoted 89 pages of judgment to quash the FIR in part
led us to draw a conclusion that the High Court had
exceeded its powers while exercising its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. We cannot
concur with such an approach of the High Court.
33. The inherent powers of the High Court, which are
obviously not defined as being inherent in its very nature,
cannot be stretched to any extent and nor can such powers
be equated with the appellate powers of the High Court
defined in the Code. The parameters laid down by this
Court while exercising inherent powers must always be
kept in mind, else it would lead to committing a
jurisdictional error in deciding the case. Such is the case
here.
2025:HHC:12651
34. On perusal of the three complaints and the FIR
mentioned above, we are of the considered view that the
complaint and FIR, do disclose a prima facie commission of
various cognizable offences alleged by the complainants
against the accused persons and, therefore, the High Court
instead of dismissing the application filed by the accused
persons in part should have dismissed the application as a
whole to uphold the entire FIR in question."
24. Hence, it is not permissible for the Court to go into the
truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR.
25. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Punit Beriwala v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983 that
the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC must
believe the contents of the FIR to be true. It was observed:
"29. It is settled law that the power of quashing of a
complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, and while exercising this power, the Court
must believe the averments and allegations in the
complaint to be true and correct. It has been repeatedly
held that, save in exceptional cases where non-
interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the
Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the
stage of investigation of offences. Extraordinary and
inherent powers of the Court should not be used in a
routine manner according to its whims or caprice."
26. It was specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that
the matter is listed for prosecution evidence, which means that
charges have been framed. It was laid down in Minakshi Bala v.
Sudhir Kumar (1994) 4 SCC 142: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1181 that once the
2025:HHC:12651
competent Court has framed the charges, the person aggrieved
may invoke the revisional jurisdiction, and the High Court should
not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
except in the rare cases. It was observed on page 145: -
"7. If charges are framed in accordance with Section 240
CrPC on a finding that a prima facie case has been made out
-- as has been done in the instant case -- the person
arraigned may, if he feels aggrieved, invoke the revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court or the Sessions Judge to
contend that the charge-sheet submitted under Section 173
CrPC and documents sent with it did not disclose any
ground to presume that he had committed any offence for
which he is charged and the revisional court if so satisfied
can quash the charges framed against him. To put it
differently, once charges are framed under Section 240 CrPC
the High Court In its revisional jurisdiction would not be
justified in relying upon documents other than those referred
to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC; nor would it be justified in
invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to
quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic
exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course.
We hasten to add even in such exceptional cases the High
Court can look into only those documents which are
unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant
evidence." (Emphasis supplied)
27. It was submitted that there is insufficient material to
convict the petitioners. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Maharashtra v. Maroti, (2023) 4 SCC 298: 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1503 that the High Court exercising the power under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot examine the truthfulness,
2025:HHC:12651
sufficiency and admissibility of the evidence. It was observed:
21. If FIR and the materials collected disclose a cognizable
offence and the final report filed under Section 173(2)CrPC
on completion of investigation based on it would reveal
that the ingredients to constitute an offence under
the POCSO Act and a prima facie case against the persons
named therein as accused, the truthfulness, sufficiency or
admissibility of the evidence are not matters falling within
the purview of exercise of power under Section 482CrPC
and undoubtedly they are matters to be done by the trial
court at the time of trial. This position is evident from the
decisions referred to supra.
22. In the decision in M.L. Bhatt v. M.K. Pandita [M.L.
Bhatt v. M.K. Pandita, (2023) 12 SCC 821: 2002 SCC OnLine SC
1300: JT (2002) 3 SC 89], this Court held that while
considering the question of quashing of FIR the High Court
would not be entitled to appreciate by way of sifting the
materials collected in course of investigation including the
statements recorded under Section 161CrPC.
23. In the decision in Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab [Rajeev
Kourav v. Baisahab, (2020) 3 SCC 317: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 51],
a two-judge Bench of this Court dealt with the question as
to the matters that could be considered by the High Court
in quashment proceedings under Section 482CrPC. It was
held therein that statements of witnesses recorded under
Section 161CrPC, being wholly inadmissible in evidence,
could not be taken into consideration by the Court while
adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482CrPC. In that
case, this Court took note of the fact that the High Court
was aware that one of the witnesses mentioned that the
deceased victim had informed him about the harassment
by the accused, which she was not able to bear and hence
wanted to commit suicide. Finding that the conclusion of
the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings, in that
case, was on the basis of its assessment of the statements
recorded under Section 161CrPC, it was held that
statements thereunder, being wholly inadmissible in
2025:HHC:12651
evidence could not have been taken into consideration by
the Court while adjudicating a petition filed under Section
482CrPC. It was also held that the High Court committed
an error in quashing the proceedings by assessing the
statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC."
28. Therefore, it is impermissible to quash the FIR and the
proceedings on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.
29. A charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The
learned Trial Court is seized of the matter. It was laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqbal v. State of U.P., (2023) 8 SCC 734:
2023 SCC OnLine SC 949 that when the charge sheet has been filed,
the learned Trial Court should be left to appreciate the same. It
was observed:
"At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that the
investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is
ready to be filed. Although the allegations levelled in the
FIR do not inspire any confidence, particularly in the
absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged
offences, we are of the view that the appellants should
prefer a discharge application before the trial court under
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We
say so because even according to the State, the
investigation is over and the charge sheet is ready to be
filed before the competent court. In such circumstances,
the trial court should be allowed to look into the materials
which the investigating officer might have collected
forming part of the charge sheet. If any such discharge
application is filed, the trial court shall look into the
materials and take a call whether any discharge case is
made out or not."
2025:HHC:12651
30. No other point was urged.
31. Consequently, the present petition fails and is
dismissed.
32. The observations made herein before shall remain
confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing,
whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
6th May, 2025
(Chander)
