The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that criminal proceedings initiated with delay, vagueness, and retaliatory intent in matrimonial disputes constitute an abuse of process, warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC. This ruling reinforces judicial scrutiny of FIRs filed as counterblasts to civil proceedings, particularly where essential ingredients of offences are absent.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a professional based in Pune and later Durg, was married to respondent No.3 on 27 April 2013. The couple lived together in Pune, raised a son born in 2017, and maintained a stable marital life until disputes arose during the COVID-19 lockdown in May 2020. The petitioner alleges he was forced to leave the matrimonial home, continued to financially support his wife and child, and later discovered her extramarital relationship. She subsequently left with the child and withdrew ₹25 lakhs from a joint loan account.
Procedural History
- September 2020: Petitioner filed divorce and child custody petitions in Pune.
- October 2020: Respondent No.3 lodged FIR No. 70/2020 under Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 IPC against the petitioner and his family.
- October 2023: Charges against family members were quashed by the same High Court.
- 2021: Charge-sheet No. 38/2021 was filed, and Criminal Case No. 5828/2021 commenced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg.
- 2023: Petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the charge-sheet and pending criminal proceedings on grounds that the allegations were vague, delayed, lacked essential ingredients of the offences, and were filed with mala fide intent to harass him in retaliation to civil matrimonial proceedings.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 482 CrPC permits quashing of a criminal proceeding initiated seven years after the alleged incident, where the FIR contains vague, omnibus allegations that fail to disclose the essential ingredients of Section 498-A and Section 377 IPC, and appears to be a retaliatory tool in a pending divorce matter.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR failed to specify any act of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC, as there were no allegations of willful conduct likely to drive the wife to suicide or cause grave injury, nor any demand for dowry. The invocation of Section 377 IPC was legally untenable given the admitted marital relationship, which is expressly excluded from the definition of rape under Section 375 IPC by Exception 2. The delay of seven years, absence of specific instances, and timing immediately after initiation of divorce proceedings demonstrated mala fide intent. Reliance was placed on Bhajan Lal, Lalita Kumari, Mehmood Ali, Ghanshyam Soni, and Preeti Gupta to establish that such proceedings are abusive and must be quashed at the threshold.
For the Respondent
The counsel for respondent No.3 opposed the petition but did not file a written reply or dispute the fact of divorce. No specific counter-arguments were advanced regarding the legal sufficiency of the FIR or the applicability of the cited precedents.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a rigorous examination of the FIR’s contents and the legal framework governing matrimonial disputes and abuse of process. It held that Section 498-A IPC requires specific allegations of willful conduct causing mental or physical harm, or harassment for unlawful dowry demand. The present FIR contained only broad, conclusory statements without any date, time, place, or nature of alleged acts of cruelty.
"The allegations levelled in the FIR are vague, omnibus, and devoid of particulars, lacking specific instances of cruelty or unlawful dowry demand..."
The Court further emphasized that Section 377 IPC cannot be invoked against a spouse in a consensual marital relationship. The 2013 amendment to Section 375 IPC expanded the definition of rape to include non-consensual acts within marriage, thereby impliedly excluding consensual acts between spouses from the ambit of Section 377 IPC. The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Soni had quashed a 22-year-old FIR under similar circumstances, and in Dara Lakshmi Narayana, had held that omnibus allegations against in-laws without specific attribution constitute abuse.
The Court also highlighted the inordinate delay of seven years, which rendered the allegations stale and unreliable. The timing of the FIR - immediately after the petitioner initiated divorce and custody proceedings - established a clear retaliatory motive. The fact that proceedings against other family members had already been quashed further indicated a pattern of indiscriminate and malicious prosecution.
The Court concluded that continuing the proceedings would amount to punishing the petitioner without evidence, violating the principles of natural justice and the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary state action.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that Section 482 CrPC empowers it to quash proceedings that constitute an abuse of process, and that the FIR and charge-sheet failed to disclose any cognizable offence under Section 498-A or Section 377 IPC. The charge-sheet No. 38/2021 and Criminal Case No. 5828/2021 were quashed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Vague Allegations Are Not Enough
- Practitioners must now insist that FIRs under Section 498-A IPC contain specific, date-wise, act-wise allegations of cruelty or dowry demand.
- Generalized claims like "harassment" or "mental torture" without particulars are insufficient to sustain prosecution.
- Courts must apply Bhajan Lal standards at the FIR stage to prevent misuse.
Delay and Retaliation Invalidate Criminal Proceedings
- A delay exceeding five years in filing an FIR in matrimonial disputes raises a strong presumption of mala fide intent.
- FIRs filed immediately after initiation of civil proceedings (divorce, custody, maintenance) must be scrutinized for retaliatory motive.
- Courts should not permit criminal law to be weaponized in civil disputes.
Section 377 IPC Has No Place in Marital Relations
- Section 377 IPC cannot be invoked against a spouse for consensual acts, even if deemed "unnatural".
- The legal position is now settled: Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC excludes marital relations from rape, and by implication, removes such acts from Section 377 IPC.
- Advocates must raise this as a threshold defence in any FIR invoking Section 377 against a spouse.
