Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has revived criminal proceedings against the husband, setting aside the High Court's order which had quashed the charges. The apex court held that the High Court erred in embarking upon a mini-trial and weighing evidence at the preliminary stage. It directed that prosecution against the husband shall continue in accordance with law.

The appellant-wife lodged a written complaint, initiating proceedings under Sections 498-A, 324, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against her husband and in-laws. Their marriage was solemnized in 2012 and the couple had two children. According to the complaint, the respondent-husband developed an illicit relationship with Bharati Halamani Tamadaddi. Four months prior to the main incident, Bharati allegedly abused the appellant in filthy language. Though she reported the incident to Teradal Police Station, no complaint was formally registered.

Also Read: Central Excise Tariff Act | Gist of Test Reports Insufficient for Reclassification: Supreme Court Sets Aside Duty Demand

The complaint further alleged sustained physical and mental harassment by the husband and in-laws, with a demand for dowry of two lakhs. Unable to endure the abuse, the appellant began residing at her parental home in Telasang.

On 27.10.2020, the respondent-husband and his family members allegedly arrived at her parental home in a car and assaulted her. They reportedly threw chilli powder into her eyes, abused her and her relatives in filthy language, and physically assaulted them using slippers and stones. A neighbour, Suvarna Andri, intervened to rescue the appellant and her family.

During the investigation, the police recovered slippers and stones from the scene. Statements of various witnesses, including neighbour Suvarna Andri, were recorded. Based on these findings, the charge sheet was filed implicating the husband and in-laws.

Subsequently, the in-laws approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. A Single Judge partially allowed their plea, quashing proceedings only against the elderly parents-in-law while allowing it to continue against the other in-laws.

Later, the respondent-husband separately approached another Single Judge of the High Court seeking quashing of proceedings against him. This request was allowed, resulting in the impugned order that set aside charges against the husband.

The Supreme Court entertained the appeal filed by the appellant-wife challenging this quashing order.

The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides and examining the record, expressed serious reservations over the High Court's approach.

"The case at hand portrays a disturbing picture," the Court observed. It recorded that while one Single Judge refused to quash the proceeding against the in-laws based on the wound certificate and witness statements, the other Judge quashed the case against the husband on the ground that the medical certificate was not consistent with the complaint.

The Supreme Court stated: "The judge erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR/Chargesheet." It held that comparing medical evidence with the allegations at the stage of quashing was impermissible as it amounted to conducting a "mini trial."

Relying on R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, the Court recalled that the High Court’s inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised only where there is no legal evidence or where the evidence manifestly fails to prove the charge.

"In exercising its jurisdiction under Section 561-A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate."

Citing a catena of precedents, the Bench noted that consistent judicial opinion prohibits High Courts from holding mini-trials at the quashing stage.

The Supreme Court further noted: "We have no hesitation to hold the allegation of throwing chilli powder and assault on the appellant by respondent-husband and other in-laws is not only supported by the wound certificate which discloses simple injury but also the statement of the neighbour, Suvarna Andri."

Rejecting the High Court's finding that it was unclear who perpetrated the assault, the Court stated: "When multiple accused share common intention/common object to commit a crime, it is irrelevant to determine the exact role played by each of them."

The Court also found fault with the High Court's observation that the criminal proceedings were abusive due to the pendency of a matrimonial suit. "Offences involving cruelty on wife would invariably arise out of matrimonial disputes. Accordingly, pendency of matrimonial proceeding cannot per se lead to an inference that institution of criminal proceeding... is a product of malice and abuse of court."

It rejected the defence argument based on "case and counter case," and pointed out that while proceedings against the septuagenarian parents-in-law were rightly quashed, allegations against the husband stood on firmer ground. The Court was critical of the High Court’s failure to even refer to the earlier coordinate bench’s refusal to quash the case against the other in-laws.

Also Read: “Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Take the Place of Proof”: Gauhati High Court Acquits Accused in Fratricide Case Due to Gaps in Circumstantial Evidence and Inadmissible Confession

"Failure to do so infracts judicial propriety and discipline. Consistency in judicial outcomes is the hallmark of a responsible judiciary. Inconsistent decisions coming out from different benches shake public trust and reduce litigation to a punter’s game."

Finally, the Bench concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable. "Impugned order suffers from the vice of judicial caprice and arbitrariness and is liable to be set aside also on this score."

The Supreme Court set aside the order dated 16.02.2024. It recorded: "For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the order dated 16.02.2024 and the proceeding against the respondent-husband (R2) are revived and shall continue in accordance with law." The Court further ordered: "Consequently, the appeal is allowed."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Rebecca John, Senior Advocate; Mr. John Mathew, Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Senior Advocate; Mrs. Mona K. Rajvanshi, Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Monika, Advocate; Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Senior Additional Advocate General; Mr. D. Kumanan, Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Deepa S., Advocate; Mr. Sheikh F. Kalia, Advocate; Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Advocate; Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Advocate; Mr. Chinmay Anand Panigrahi, Advocate

Case Title: Renuka v. State of Karnataka and Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 596

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. ___ of 2025 (@ D.No.55944 of 2024))

Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narsimha, Justice Joymalya Bagchi

[Read/Download order]