2026 INSC 412

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 1 of 16

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.9195 OF 2025 )

SIVARAMAN NAIR

AND OTHERS

… APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF KERALA

AND ANOTHER

… RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal assails the judgment and

order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the High

Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl.MC.

No.5826 of 2023 whereby the High Court

declined to quash the proceedings arising out of

FIR No.1318 of 2016 registered at Museum

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 2 of 16

Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala

under sections 494 and 498A read with section

34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘IPC’) lodged at the instance of

Respondent no.2 herein against her husband,

her father-in-law (Accused-appellant no.1

herein), mother-in-law (Accused-appellant no.2

herein) and sister-in-law (Accused-appellant

no.3 herein).

3. The facts in brief are that Respondent no.2

married Syam Sivaraman Nair on 19

th

December 2007.

4. On 24

th August 2016, she filed a complaint

before the police station alleging that she was

subjected to dowry harassment from the

inception of her marriage. She stated that her

husband took her to Abu Dhabi after her

marriage while the accused-appellants resided

in Kawdiar, Kerala. While she was residing with

her husband, she was often physically

assaulted and mentally tortured by him. It was

alleged that he would take drugs and torture her

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 3 of 16

with demand of Rs.30 lakhs and 47 sovereigns

of gold.

5. She further stated that on her becoming

pregnant, she came to live in her native village

in October 2008. While she was living there, her

husband would frequently call her and harass

her regarding dowry. He took her back with him

in September 2009 under the impressio n of

arranging for a job for her but she was again

mentally and physically harassed there.

6. Thereafter, in April 2010 she was taken to the

house in Saudi Arabia where the accused-

appellants were residing. There she overheard

them discussing the sale of 153 gold sovereigns

and was subjected to assault and threatened by

her husband regarding the matter.

7. It was alleged that in June 2010 she was taken

back to India and upon her objecti ons to

discussions regarding sale of the gold

sovereigns, she was threatened of being

abandoned with her child. The 153 gold

sovereigns were sold and a Volkswagen car was

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 4 of 16

purchased in the name of her husband from the

amount received. The balance amount was

given to her sister-in-law for purchasing a flat.

8. She again went abroad in October 2010 with her

husband where she was frequently assaulted for

dowry by him. It was alleged that pursuant to

this her elder brother gave the parents of her

husband Rs. 5 lakhs on 26

th May 2011, Rs.15

lakhs on 31

st August 2011 and Rs. 9 lakhs on

22

nd June 2011. Thereafter, she was left in her

native village while her husband went abroad.

9. In February 2015, her husband took her back

to reside in Mavelikkara, Kerala. While residing

there, a lawyer’s notice was received in the name

of her husband which was sent by one Simran

G. who claimed to be his wife. Photos of them

standing together were also received. When she

enquired regarding this, she was told that they

were sent by somebody to fool her. Later on, her

brother discovered that her husband had gotten

married to one Simran in Andhra on 21

st May

2013 by suppressing that he was already

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 5 of 16

married.

10. After a few months, in September 2015, her

husband again started demanding money and

assaulting her, after which her elder brother

paid them Rs.2 lakhs in instalments. She also

alleged that she was assaulted by her husband

in the presence of the accused-appellants when

she inquired regarding the second marriage.

11. Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered

against the husband and the accused -

appellants. Upon investigation, a chargesheet

came to be filed on 11

th September 2018 before

the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Charges

were framed and the accused persons pleaded

not guilty and claimed trial. In July 2023, the

accused-appellants approached the High Court

of Kerala by filing a petition under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973

(hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’) bearing Crl.

M.C. No.5826 of 2023 seeking quashing of

proceedings against them.

12. By the impugned judgment and order dated

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 6 of 16

25.11.2024, the High Court noted that the

prosecution records did not justify the

contentions of the accused-appellants that the

allegations of cruelty were not made out against

them and that the second marriage was not

known to them. On this basis, the High Court

refused to quash the proceedings, underscoring

the need for trial against the accused-

appellants.

13. Aggrieved, the accused-appellants have now

approached this Court by way of the present

appeal.

14. The Learned Counsel for the accused-appellants

submits that the accused-appellants are aged

individuals who were not residing with the

complainant during the relevant time and had

no role in her marital life. There are no specific

allegations of cruelty against them. Rather, the

complaint consists of vague allegations that are

not supported by any independent material. The

mere presence of the accused-appellants as the

relatives of the husband does not establish

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 7 of 16

common intention. Reliance is placed on

Geddam Jhansi and Another v. State of

Telangana and Others

1 to contend that criminal

proceedings in matrimonial disputes must be

based on specific allegations supported by

material evidence and allowing the present

criminal proceedings to continue would amount

to an abuse of process of law.

15. Furthermore, it is submitted that there is a

significant delay in lodging the FIR as the

allegations pertain to incidents that are alleged

to have taken place between 2007 and 2010,

whereas the FIR was registered only on 24

th

August 2016. This unexplained delay in filing

the complaint raises serious doubts regarding

the credibility of the allegations and suggests an

afterthought to harass the accused-appellants.

16. With regard to the allegations under Section 494

of the IPC, reliance is placed on S. Nitheen and

Others v. State of Kerala and Another

2, to

contend that liability under the section cannot

1

2025 SCC OnLine SC 263

2

(2024) 8 SCC 706

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 8 of 16

extend to any person other than the spouse

alleged to have contracted the second marriage.

There are no allegations or evidence of the

participation or facilitation of the accused-

appellants in the marriage and they are sought

to be implicated solely on the basis of their

familial relationship with the accused-husband.

17. It is submitted that the accused-appellants

cannot be penalised for non -disclosure of

bigamy and failure to interfere between

husband and wife when he allegedly inflicted

violence on the complainant.

18. The Learned Counsel for the Complainant, on

the other hand, submits that the accused-

appellants were not strangers to her marital life

and resided with them at the matrimonial home

at Mavelikkara, Kerala. Their conduct directly

contributed to the physical and mental cruelty

inflicted upon her. Their involvement was active

and continuous as they always encouraged the

cruelty inflicted by the accused-husband upon

her.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 9 of 16

19. It is submitted that they received the

instalments of the amounts paid by her brother.

They also colluded with her husband and sold

the gold which was gifted to her by her parents

at the time of her marriage without her consent.

It is also submitted that it is apparent from the

photographs that the accused-appellants were

fully aware of the second marriage. They

manipulated her and convinced her to reside

with the accused-husband. These actions are

sufficient to attract the offences under Sections

494, 498A read with 34 of the IPC.

20. It is also submitted that the alleged delay in

lodging the complaint does not vitiate the

prosecution as the FIR and Final Report disclose

a continuous pattern of physical and mental

cruelty which continued until her separation.

Prayer, on the basis of these submissions, is

made for dismissal of the appeal.

21. It is a settled position of law as laid down by this

Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 10 of 16

Lal and Others

3 that the inherent powers of the

Court under section 482 CrPC are to be

exercised ‘to prevent the abuse of the process of

any court or otherwise to secure the ends of

justice.’ Paragraph 102 is extracted herein

below:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of

the various relevant provisions of the Code

under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law

enunciated by this Court in a series of

decisions relating to the exercise of the

extraordinary power under Article 226 or the

inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code

which we have extracted and reproduced

above, we have given the following categories

of cases by way of illustration wherein such

power could be exercised either to prevent

abuse of the process of any court or otherwise

to secure the ends of justice, though it may not

be possible to lay down any precise, clearly

defined and sufficiently channelised and

inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to

give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases

wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first

information report or the complaint, even if

they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie

constitute any offence or make out a case

against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first

information report and other materials, if

any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a

3

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 11 of 16

cognizable offence, justifying an

investigation by police officers under Section

156(1) of the Code except under an order of

a Magistrate within the purview of Section

155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations

made in the FIR or complaint and the

evidence collected in support of the same do

not disclose the commission of any offence

and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not

constitute a cognizable offence but constitute

only a non -cognizable offence, no

investigation is permitted by a police officer

without an order of a Magistrate as

contemplated under Section 155(2) of the

Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint are so absurd and inherently

improbable on the basis of which no prudent

person can ever reach a just conclusion that

there is sufficient ground for proceeding

against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar

engrafted in any of the provisions of the

Code or the concerned Act (under which a

criminal proceeding is instituted) to the

institution and continuance of the

proceedings and/or where there is a specific

provision in the Code or the concerned Act,

providing efficacious redress for the

grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 12 of 16

the accused and with a view to spite him due

to private and personal grudge.”

22. We have heard Learned counsel for the parties

and have carefully perused the material on

record. In light of the abovementioned position

of law, two questions fall for consideration: first,

whether the allegations contained in the FIR

and the chargesheet prima facie disclose the

commission of offences under Sections 498A

and 494 read with Section 34 of the IPC against

the accused-appellants specifically, as distinct

from the accused -husband; and second,

whether, in the facts and circumstances of the

present case, the continuation of crimina l

proceedings against the accused -appellants

would amount to an abuse of the process of law

within the meaning of Section 482 of the CrPC.

23. At the outset, it is to be noted that the gravamen

of the complaint lies against the accused -

husband. Specific allegations regarding

physical assault, demand of dowry and mental

torture have been made against him pertaining

to specific dates and incidents. The allegations

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 13 of 16

against the accused-appellants however are less

of that of active involvement and are mostly that

of them being present or encouraging the

harassment meted out by the accused -

husband. This Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana

and Others v. State of Telangana and Another

4

has laid a word of caution in a similar case

involving quashing of proceedings against

members of the husband’s family, by noting

that:

“ 27. A mere reference to the names of family

members in a criminal case arising out of a

matrimonial dispute, without specific

allegations indicating their active involvement

should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-

recognised fact, borne out of judicial

experience, that there is often a tendency to

implicate all the members of the husband’s

family when domestic disputes arise out of a

matrimonial discord. Such generalised and

sweeping accusations unsupported by

concrete evidence or particularised allegations

cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.

Courts must exercise caution in such cases to

prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal

process and avoid unnecessary harassment of

innocent family members. …”

24. In the present case, accused-appellant no. 1,

the father-in-law, and accused-appellant no. 2,

4

(2025) 3 SCC 735

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 14 of 16

the mother-in-law, are alleged to have been

present during certain incidents of harassment

and to have received amounts paid by the

complainant's brother. However, the FIR does

not attribute to them any specific act of demand,

threat, or physical assault on any identifiable

occasion.

25. Accused-appellant no. 3, the sister-in-law, is

alleged to have received money for the purchase

of a flat from the proceeds of the sale of gold, but

no specific act of cruelty or coercion on her part

has been alleged. No other allegations have been

made against her except for the receipt of such

money. In all three instances, the allegations

consist of general statements of presence and

encouragement rather than specific acts that

individually constitute the offence of cruelty

under Section 498A of the IPC.

26. Coming to the allegations under Section 494 of

the IPC, it has been held in S. Nitheen (supra)

that in order to bring home the said charge, the

complainant is required to prima facie prove the

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 15 of 16

overt act or omission of the accused persons in

the second marriage ceremony. The prosecution

has failed to provide any cogent evidence to

establish such overt act or intention on part of

the accused-appellants.

27. The High Court relied upon the statement of a

witness to infer knowledge on the part of the

accused-appellants. However, such inferential

knowledge, without more, is insufficient to

satisfy the threshold established in S. Nitheen

(supra), which requires evidence of an overt act

or omission. While it has been alleged that the

accused-appellants were aware of the second

marriage, mere knowledge that an act is being

or has been committed by another person does

not, by itself, establish the requisite common

intention. Even proceeding on the basis that the

accused-appellants were aware of the second

marriage, there is no allegation, let alone any

material, to suggest that they actively

participated in, facilitated, or encouraged the

solemnisation of that marriage.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.9195/2025 Page 16 of 16

28. In view of the aforementioned reasons, the

impugned order dated 25.11.2024 is set aside

and the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 1318

of 2016 registered at Museum Police Station,

Thiruvananthapuram stand quashed qua the

accused-appellants herein.

29. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

30. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

.……..………..……………………..J.

[ SANJAY KAROL ]

.……..………..……………………..J.

[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 24, 2026.