Supreme Court observed that the FIR was filed belatedly after the divorce petition. Charge of Section 376 IPC was dropped after two rounds of investigation, and no protest petition was filed. Relying on precedents (Iqbal alias Bala, Monica Kumar, Arun Jain, Mala Kar), the Court found the FIR to be vexatious and instituted with an ulterior motive. Exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court quashed FIR No. 733/2021 and charge sheet dated 02.02.2022. Relevant Paragraphs: 12–19.

Held: Appeal allowed; criminal proceedings quashed.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – Power of the Supreme Court to do complete justice.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Inherent powers of the High Court – Quashing of FIR.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 498A, 504, 506 – Cruelty to woman, intentional insult, and criminal intimidation.
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3 and 4 – Giving and demanding dowry.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Divorce petition filed prior to lodging of FIR.

Subjects:

Quashing of FIR – Matrimonial dispute – Abuse of process – No specific allegations – Counterblast FIR – Divorce granted – Article 142 jurisdiction – Omnibus allegations – No protest petition – Vexatious litigation.

Facts:

a. The marriage between Appellant No. 3 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 05.03.2016.
b. Appellant No. 3 filed a divorce petition on 17.06.2021 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
c. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 733/2021 on 19.08.2021, alleging offences under IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
d. Police investigation led to a charge sheet against the Appellants, excluding the Section 376 IPC charge initially alleged. No protest petition was filed by Respondent No. 2 regarding the dropped rape charge.
e. The High Court dismissed the quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, leading to this appeal.

Issues:

a. Whether the FIR and charge sheet disclosed specific allegations against the Appellants.
b. Whether the FIR was filed as a counterblast to the divorce petition.
c. Whether the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.

Submissions:

Appellants:

• The FIR was filed with an ulterior motive post-divorce proceedings.
• The allegations were omnibus in nature, lacking specific details.
• No protest petition was filed when the rape charge was dropped.

Respondent No. 2:

• The charge sheet and evidence on record justified prosecution.
• The High Court rightly refused to interfere at the charge-sheet stage.