The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by the husband against the Telangana High Court order refusing to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act -- The Court found that the allegations of dowry demands and cruelty were general, unsubstantiated, and constituted normal wear and tear of married life -- The Court noted that the complaint appeared to be a counterblast to the legal notice sent by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights -- Considering that all other family members had been exonerated and the allegations lacked specific instances of cruelty, the Court quashed the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC -- The appeal was allowed and the criminal proceedings were set aside
Criminal Law- Code of criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 498A- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961- Sections 3 and 4-Matrimonial Discord-- Wife filed a complaint u/s 498A of IPC and U/s 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act- General and vague allegations-- High has already quashed the complaint qua in-laws-- No relief granted to the appellant-husband by the high court-- Aggrieved-- Challenged by --No Substance in genearl and vague allegations levelled in the complaint-- The Court held that the allegations constituted general wear and tear of marriage life -- The proceedings were found to be a counterblast to the legal notice sent by the appellant-husband for restitution of conjugal rights -- An act of the accused-appellant of sending money back to his family members cannot be misconstrued in a way that leads to a criminal prosecution--Merely mentioning the word of harassment in the complaint would not ipso facto attract the rpvisions of Section 498A of IPC-- Daily wear and tear of marriage cannot be termed as cruelty and harassment- Fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of Code--The appeal was allowed and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside
Para- 20-28
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal -- The Court quashed the proceedings arising out of FIR No.29 of 2022 and Complaint Case No.1067 of 2022 -- The impugned order of the High Court dated 27.04.2023 was set aside
Citation: 2025 LawText (SC) (12) 94
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. of 2025 arising out of Diary No.47072 of 2023)
Date of Decision: 2025-12-19
Case Title: Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when allegations are general, unsubstantiated, and appear to be a counterblast to legal notice for restitution of conjugal rights
Before Judge: B.V. NAGARATHNA J. , R. MAHADEVAN J.
Equivalent Citations: 2025 INSC 1471
Advocate(s): S. S. JAUHAR
Appellant: Belide Swagath Kumar
Respondent: State of Telangana, Nalla Rashmi
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against High Court order refusing to quash proceedings under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act
Remedy Sought: Appellant husband seeking quashing of FIR No.29 of 2022 and Complaint Case No.1067 of 2022
Filing Reason: High Court dismissed criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings
Previous Decisions: High Court dismissed Criminal Petition No.4364 of 2023 on 27.04.2023 -- High Court allowed Criminal Petition No.4025 of 2022 on 23.04.2025 quashing proceedings against other family members
Issues: Whether criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when allegations are general and unsubstantiated Whether the complaint constitutes a counterblast to legal proceedings initiated by the husband
Submissions/Arguments: Allegations are general, unsubstantiated, and do not fall under Section 498A IPC definition -- Allegations constitute normal wear and tear of married life -- Complaint is counterblast to legal notice for restitution of conjugal rights -- Other family members already exonerated by High Court Complaint stems from actual instances of atrocities -- Husband exercised monetary control over complainant -- Allegations are specific and substantiated
Ratio Decidendi: Criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when allegations are general, unsubstantiated, and constitute normal wear and tear of married life -- Proceedings that appear to be counterblast to legal proceedings initiated by the other party should be scrutinized carefully -- When family members have been exonerated and allegations lack specificity, proceedings against remaining accused may not be sustainable
Judgment Excerpts: The incidents mentioned in the FIR are general in nature and consist of sweeping unsubstantiated and frivolous allegations which do not fall under the definition of dowry as defined under Section 498A of the IPC The allegations made by the complainant pertain to general wear and tear of the marriage which are part and parcel of a matrimonial life The complaint and the FIR are a counterblast of the legal notice dated 11.01.2022 sent by the accused-appellant and motivated by vengeance and malice
Procedural History: FIR No.29 of 2022 registered on 27.01.2022 under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 DP Act -- Complaint Case No.1067 of 2022 filed -- Appellant filed Criminal Petition No.4364 of 2023 under Section 482 CrPC before Telangana High Court -- High Court dismissed petition on 27.04.2023 -- Appellant filed present appeal before Supreme Court -- Supreme Court allowed appeal and quashed proceedings
