The Supreme Court has reiterated that vague and generalized allegations against relatives of a husband in matrimonial disputes cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution under dowry and domestic violence laws.
The bench of Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh quashed criminal proceedings and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against the husband’s relatives after finding that the allegations were largely omnibus and lacked specific attribution of acts constituting offences.
The matter arose from criminal proceedings initiated by Sapna Dhakad against her husband Divyaraj Dhakad and several of his family members under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had refused to quash the FIR and DV proceedings, observing that the allegations against the family members were specific enough to warrant prosecution.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that they had been implicated solely because of their relationship with the husband and that no particular acts constituting cruelty or unlawful dowry demand had been attributed to them. They also contended that the complaint had been filed after matrimonial relations had already deteriorated and after proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act had been initiated.
The Court examined not merely the FIR but also the domestic violence complaint and pleadings filed by the complainant in matrimonial proceedings, including her divorce petition. It observed that a close reading of these documents revealed that the principal allegations of abuse, physical assault, humiliation, surveillance through hidden cameras, threats and neglect were directed primarily against the husband. The Court found that the detailed accusations consistently focused on the husband’s conduct during the couple’s stay at Sheopur in government accommodation.
The Bench noted that allegations against the relatives merely stated that they “used to harass”, “demand dowry”, or “supported” the husband, without specifying the dates, incidents, nature of conduct, or individual roles played by each accused. It observed that there was no clear indication regarding who made any demand, in what manner such demand was made, or what specific acts of cruelty had allegedly been committed.
In relation to one of the appellants, Arti Mehta, the Court found that the allegations merely indicated that she had failed to react or intervene in the manner expected by the complainant after being informed about the husband’s conduct. The Court held that failure to intervene in matrimonial disputes cannot by itself attract criminal liability. It similarly found that allegations against the other relatives consisted of generalized assertions regarding insults or suggestions concerning the complainant’s marital life.
The Supreme Court also found inconsistencies in the complainant’s own pleadings. It noted that while the FIR created an impression of continuous harassment by all family members, the divorce petition largely focused on the husband and acknowledged that the couple had been residing separately in Sheopur. The Court observed that this significantly weakened allegations of persistent harassment by the relatives residing elsewhere.
The Court further emphasized that filing of a charge-sheet does not bar exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process. Referring to earlier precedents including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Bench reiterated that courts are empowered to intervene where criminal proceedings are founded on allegations that do not disclose a prima facie case.
The Court made important observations on the tendency in matrimonial disputes to implicate multiple members of the husband’s family. It observed that marital disputes often involve emotional distress and bitterness, resulting in broad allegations against relatives who may not have actively participated in the dispute. It cautioned that criminal law cannot become an instrument of harassment merely because a person is related to one of the spouses.
Holding that the allegations against the appellants lacked the necessary specificity required to sustain criminal prosecution, the Supreme Court concluded that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process and interfered with the proceedings against the husband’s relatives.
Case Details
Case Title: Arti Mehta & Ors. Versus Sapna Dhakad
Citation: JURISHOUR-1386-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 18345 Of 2024
Date: 25/05/2025
