Supreme Court Restores Dowry Prosecution, Sets Aside High Court Order Quashing FIR Against Three Accused

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih heard an appeal against the High Court of Chhattisgarh’s order which, by exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, had quashed criminal proceedings arising out of an FIR registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in respect of three of the accused while sustaining the FIR against a fourth. The appeal challenged the High Court’s finding that allegations against the three accused were "vague and omnibus in nature."

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned High Court order and directed that the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 608 of 2016 be taken to their logical conclusion in accordance with law. The bench held that the FIR, read on its face, disclosed specific and definite allegations with dates and particulars which prima facie constituted ingredients of the offences alleged against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents and therefore could not have been quashed at the stage of a Section 482 petition. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further noted that a contention of misrepresentation was a pure question of fact for trial and that, as this Court had held in Bhajanlal, "mala fide must be manifest on the face of the FIR" for quashing on that ground; the present case did not meet that threshold.

Background The dispute arose from marriage negotiations between the 2nd appellant’s daughter and the 5th respondent. The FIR, lodged on 29 November 2016 by the 1st appellant, alleged continuous demands for dowry including a sum of Rs. 10 lakh and a vehicle, and specific incidents: the 5th respondent meeting the 2nd appellant on 15 April 2016, a visit by the 4th respondent on 4 June 2016 demanding money, booking of a venue on 18 June 2016 with advances paid, and gifts given on the tilak ceremony of 10 July 2016. The matter was investigated and a charge-sheet under Section 173(2) CrPC was filed on 27 May 2018. The High Court, by a Division Bench order dated 20 August 2024, quashed the FIR insofar as it concerned the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents on the ground that allegations against them were vague and omnibus, but declined to quash proceedings against the 5th respondent.

On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie case against the three accused and whether the High Court was justified in invoking its inherent powers. The Court found the FIR to contain specific allegations with dates and particulars sufficient to require a trial. It rejected the contention that the proceedings were mala fide or instituted with ulterior motive, observing that such a finding must be manifest on the face of the FIR and could not be inferred at the quashing stage. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, held that the trial court alone must decide disputed factual issues such as alleged misrepresentation, and directed that the criminal proceedings be carried forward without being influenced by the observations in the judgment. The appeal was allowed and no costs were imposed.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 958 Case Title: Krishnakant Kwivedy & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment