LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/kailashben-mahendrabhai-patel-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-20240925/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
25 September 2024
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 4003 of 2024
Result
Allowed
Bench
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal
Citation
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 62 : 2024 INSC 737
Acts & Sections
IPC CrPC
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 10 S.C.R. 62 : 2024 INSC 737
Issue for consideration
FIR was filed against the appellants under Sections 498A, 323, 504,

506 read with Section 34 IPC. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition under Section 482, CrPC for quashing of the said FIR and the chargesheet against the appellants and holding that a prima facie case of cruelty was made out against them under Section 498A, Penal Code, 1860.
Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w s.34 – Ingredients of – When not made out – Complaint filed by respondent no.2-wife making vague allegations alleging dowry demand and threat by the appellants (step mother-in-law, step brother-in-law, father-in-law and one other person) to deny her and her husband a share in the property – Petition u/s.482, CrPC filed by the appellants for quashing, dismissed by High Court – Correctness:

Held: Impugned judgment set aside – Criminal proceedings were filed with mala fide intention only to harass the appellants – Though all the allegations related to demand of dowry, the complainant chose not to involve her husband in the criminal proceedings – Complainant and her husband distributed amongst themselves, the institution of civil and criminal proceedings against the appellants with the husband instituting the civil suit and the complainant filing criminal proceedings – The provocation for the Complaint/FIR was essentially the property dispute between father and son and it intended only to further their interest of the civil dispute – Allegations made were general, vague, and omnibus and lacked in particulars and details – The essence of the complaint was in the alleged threat to deprive the husband any share in the property with respect to which the husband had already filed the suit for declaration – No offence made out on the basis of vague and unclear allegations – Further, the domestic violence complaint filed by respondent no.2 with identical allegations was also rejected as being false and untenable – None of the ingredients of ss.498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w s.34 made out, criminal proceedings against the appellants are abuse of process of law – FIR and chargesheet quashed. [Paras 13-15, 17, 18]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Duty of the court, when complaint/FIR is frivolous/vexatious/instituted with ulterior motive or is civil in nature – Discussed.

Quashing – Of criminal proceedings after filing of charge sheet – Permissibility:

Held: There is no prohibition against quashing of the criminal proceedings even after the filing of charge sheet. [Para 16]

Keywords: Quashing · Cruelty · Dowry demand · Matrimonial disputes · Dispute civil in nature · General, vague, omnibus allegations lacking in particulars and details · Domestic violence complaint dismissed · Abuse of process of law/criminal process · Travesty of justice · Complaint/FIR frivolous/vexatious, civil in nature

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This criminal appeal is against the dismissal of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet against the appellants herein. By order dated 01.05.2018, this Court issued notice in the Special Leave Petition and stayed the criminal proceedings. The short and necessary facts for disposal of this criminal appeal are as follows. 3. Respondent no. 2 is the complainant. She was married to one Niraj Mahendrabhai Patel in 2002, and he is not a party in these proceedings. On 01.03.2013, the co
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →