Whether delay in filing FIR raise doubts about complainant’s intentions?

Case Citation

Supreme Court of India
Digambar and Another v. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2122 of 2020)
Judgment Date: December 20, 2024
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Facts of the Case

The appellants, Digambar and Kashibai Suryawanshi, were the parents-in-law of the complainant, who alleged harassment and cruelty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after the birth of two daughters. The complainant claimed she was forced to consume poisoned food by the appellants, leading to a miscarriage, resulting in allegations under Sections 312 and 313 IPC. A First Information Report (FIR) was filed in November 2018 after the complainant separated from her husband in February 2018. The appellants sought to quash the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which was dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved, they appealed to the Supreme Court.

Contentions of the Appellants

The appellants argued that the allegations were vague, inconsistent, and lacked evidence. They highlighted:

• The FIR was filed two years after the alleged incident, raising doubts about its genuineness.
• The complainant’s notice of divorce made no mention of the allegations later included in the FIR.
• The chargesheet and the complainant’s medical records did not establish any connection between the appellants and the miscarriage.
• The complaint was a retaliatory measure to pressure the appellants’ son during divorce proceedings.

Contentions of the Respondent

The State argued that:

• The allegations in the FIR disclosed prima facie offenses under Sections 498-A, 312, 313, and 34 IPC.
• The complainant had consistently faced harassment due to the appellants’ preference for a male child.
• The allegations should be examined during trial, and the High Court correctly refused to quash the proceedings.

The complainant supported these contentions, asserting that the appellants instigated her husband and contributed to her harassment.

Issues on this Judgment

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed prima facie offenses under Sections 498-A, 312, 313, and 34 IPC.
2. Whether the FIR was a retaliatory measure aimed at pressuring the appellants’ son during divorce proceedings.
3. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

Observations/Findings of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court found the allegations against the appellants vague and lacking specificity. The complainant failed to provide evidence linking the appellants to the alleged miscarriage or harassment. The Court emphasized that Vague and omnibus allegations, without concrete evidence, cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. The complainant’s medical records indicated that the miscarriage resulted from abortion pills, with no evidence implicating the appellants. The delay in filing the FIR and the absence of allegations in the divorce notice raised doubts about the complainant’s intentions.

Citing the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process and should be quashed.

Principles Laid Down by the Court

1. Criminal proceedings based on vague and unsupported allegations are liable to be quashed to prevent misuse of the judicial process.
2. FIRs lacking prima facie evidence of offenses, or filed with malafide intent, cannot be allowed to proceed.
3. Courts must exercise caution in cases involving matrimonial disputes to prevent misuse of criminal law.

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants.

Importance of This Judgment to Society

This judgment reaffirms the need to protect individuals from frivolous and retaliatory litigation, particularly in matrimonial disputes. It emphasizes the importance of prima facie evidence in criminal cases and underscores the need for courts to prevent misuse of legal provisions intended to safeguard genuine victims. The decision balances the rights of accused individuals against the misuse of protective legislation.