Supreme Court Quashes FIR Filed By Woman Alleging Husband Lied About His Job | Finds Allegations Extraneous And No Offence Made Out
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, set aside criminal proceedings against a group of appellants accused under a disputed FIR. The apex court stated that the High Court ought to have exercised its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, terming the FIR as filed for "extraneous reasons" and constituting an "abuse of process of law."
The appellants approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8336 of 2024. The High Court had declined to quash the FIR lodged by Respondent No. 2, the complainant, against the appellants. The matter originated from a matrimonial dispute wherein the complainant was married to Appellant No. 1 on 10.04.2023. The couple lived together for approximately four months.
The complainant later lodged an FIR on 30.09.2023 alleging that Appellant No. 1 had misrepresented his professional qualifications and concealed his medical condition. Specifically, the complainant asserted that she had married the appellant under the impression that he was an Eye Surgeon. However, she claimed to have learned only during their wedding reception held on 21.05.2023, upon reviewing the invitation cards, that he was in fact an Optometrist with a qualification of B.Sc. Furthermore, it was alleged that Appellant No. 1 suffered from leukoderma, a skin condition visible on his face and hands, which was also purportedly concealed from her.
The appellants contended that there had been no deliberate misrepresentation or concealment. They submitted various materials, including WhatsApp chats, to demonstrate that the complainant was fully aware of the appellant's professional qualifications and medical condition before and during their marriage. It was also argued that the complainant, a student of M. Com at the time of marriage, had married the appellant against her parents’ wishes.
The Supreme Court considered all documents and submissions made before it. It recorded that from the evidence produced, including undisputed WhatsApp exchanges, there was no attempt by the appellant to deceive the complainant either regarding his skin condition or his qualification as an Optometrist.
The Bench observed that from all reasonable assumptions as well as the documents placed on record, it was evident that "the complainant had full knowledge that the appellant was suffering from skin disease and he was not an Eye Surgeon, but an Optometrist."
The Court further "recorded" that the complainant had married Appellant No. 1 against her parents’ wishes and had access to sufficient information about the appellant’s background, which nullified claims of deception.
"From the WhatsApp chats which has been shown to us; not disputed, it is clear that there was no effort on the part of the appellant to disguise or befool the complainant regarding his skin disease or regarding his qualification."
The FIR, according to the Court, had been filed for reasons that were not genuine legal grievances but motivated by unrelated personal considerations. In strong terms, the Court stated: "The FIR has been filed totally for extraneous reasons."
In assessing the powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, the Court noted: "This is a befitting case where the High Court should have exercised its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and should have quashed the proceedings as this is nothing but an abuse of process of law."
Based on the findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The Court categorically "quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant(s) and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court."
The order concluded with the disposal of any pending interlocutory applications.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Somesh Chandra Jha, Advocate-on-Record; H. B. Shethna, Advocate; Saumya Dwivedi, Advocate; Akash Kishore, Advocate; Animesh Rajoriya, Advocate
For the Respondents: Dr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Senior Advocate; Dharita Malkan, Advocate; Alok Kumar, Advocate; Kush Goel, Advocate; Khushboo Aakash Sheth, Advocate-on-Record; Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate; Rishi Yadav, Advocate
Case Title: Rohan & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No(s). 2284 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12356 of 2024]
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
[Read/Download order]
