In a significant reaffirmation of established principles, the Supreme Court of India has held that while dealing with petitions seeking quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — now corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — the High Courts must not delve into the veracity or credibility of the allegations made in the complaint. The Court observed that such an approach amounts to conducting a “mini-trial,” which is impermissible at the pre-trial stage.
The ruling, rendered in Muskan v. Ishaan Khan & Ors. (2025 INSC 1287), serves as an important reminder that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law or result in miscarriage of justice.
Factual Background
The case arose from a domestic dispute. The appellant, Muskan, married Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) on 20 November 2020, in accordance with Muslim rites and customs. A child was born out of the marriage. Initially, the couple lived peacefully; however, within a few months, the appellant was allegedly subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws for not bringing sufficient dowry.
According to the appellant, the respondents taunted her for not meeting their dowry expectations. On 22 July 2021, she was allegedly assaulted and abused. Later, on 27 November 2022, her husband demanded ₹50 lakhs from her father to fund his further medical studies, threatening to abandon her if the demand was not met. Subsequently, she and her son were ousted from the matrimonial home.
Following repeated attempts at reconciliation by her family, Muskan filed FIR No. 35/2024 at Alot Police Station, District Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh, under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Proceedings Before the High Court
The husband and his relatives filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) seeking quashing of the FIR, alleging that the FIR was a “counterblast” to a legal notice issued by the husband when Muskan refused to return to the matrimonial home.
The High Court allowed the petition on 19 July 2024, quashing the FIR on the ground that the earlier complaints filed by the wife in January 2023 did not mention the specific incidents dated 22 July 2021 and 27 November 2022, which were subsequently included in the FIR. The High Court termed the addition of these incidents an “afterthought,” suggesting mala fide intent.
Aggrieved, Muskan approached the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by assessing the credibility of allegations — a matter reserved for trial.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issue:
- Whether the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by examining the veracity and credibility of allegations made in the FIR and earlier complaints, thereby conducting a ‘mini-trial’?
Arguments
For the Appellant (Muskan)
Counsel argued that:
- The FIR disclosed prima facie allegations of cruelty and dowry demand.
- The High Court’s reasoning — that omission of two incidents in earlier complaints rendered the FIR unreliable — was contrary to settled law.
- Under Section 482 CrPC, the court must not evaluate truthfulness or sufficiency of evidence but only examine if the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.
- Reliance was placed on precedents including Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), which lay down that courts should not embark upon an inquiry into the reliability of allegations at the quashing stage.
For the Respondents
The amicus curiae appointed for the unrepresented respondents contended that:
- The FIR was inconsistent with earlier complaints lodged before the Women’s Cell, which contained generic allegations without mentioning specific dates or monetary demands.
- The FIR was filed after a delay of nearly one year, suggesting an ulterior motive.
- Vague and omnibus allegations against multiple family members do not constitute a prima facie case under Section 498A IPC.
- Precedents such as Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. (2023) 15 SCC 488 and Digambar v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836) were cited to argue that courts must be cautious in allowing prosecutions based on vague complaints.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Reasoning
1. Limits of Judicial Interference under Section 482 CrPC
The Court reiterated that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are wide but not unfettered. They must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.
Citing the landmark ruling in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court recalled the seven illustrative categories where quashing may be justified — such as when the FIR fails to disclose any offence, is inherently improbable, or is motivated by mala fide intent. The present case, it held, did not fall under any of these categories.
2. No “Mini-Trial” at the Stage of Quashing
The Court emphasised that at the stage of considering a petition for quashing, the High Court cannot undertake a roving inquiry into the truth or falsity of allegations. Such an exercise amounts to conducting a “mini-trial,” which is alien to the limited scope of Section 482 CrPC.
Referring to State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty (2022) 16 SCC 703, the Bench observed:
“While examining an FIR or complaint, the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made. Quashing of an FIR should be an exception rather than the rule.”
Similarly, in CBI v. Aryan Singh (2023) 18 SCC 399, the Supreme Court had clarified that courts cannot weigh evidence or conclude that allegations are “not proved” at the pre-trial stage.
3. FIR Need Not Be an Encyclopedia
The judgment reaffirmed that an FIR is not expected to contain every minute detail or chronological narration of events. Its purpose is to set the criminal law in motion. Thus, minor inconsistencies or omissions in earlier complaints cannot justify quashing if the FIR, read as a whole, discloses a cognizable offence.
Citing Neeharika Infrastructure (supra), the Court reiterated that when an investigation is ongoing, it would be premature for courts to comment on the merits of allegations. The investigating agency must be allowed to complete its inquiry.
4. Application to the Present Case
The Supreme Court found that both the initial complaints (January 2023) and the subsequent FIR (January 2024) contained substantive allegations of cruelty and dowry demand. The additional mention of specific incidents in the FIR did not alter the substance of the complaint but rather elaborated on prior harassment.
The Court noted:
“From the conjoint reading of the complaints and the FIR, it can be seen that prima facie allegations of harassment and demand of dowry are made out. Yet, the High Court quashed the FIR on the ground that earlier complaints did not mention certain dates. This approach amounts to conducting a mini-trial.”
5. Role of High Courts: Caution and Restraint
The Bench reiterated that inherent powers are not meant to short-circuit legitimate prosecution. It stressed that judicial interference at the threshold should occur only when the complaint is manifestly frivolous or malicious, and not merely because the court suspects exaggeration or inconsistency.
Quoting from Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451, Justice Mishra observed:
“Inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.”
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the FIR against all respondents. It directed that all issues and defences remain open to be considered by the trial court on merits.
The Court concluded:
“The High Court erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility of allegations in the complaints and the FIR. This approach amounts to conducting a mini-trial, which is impermissible. The power of quashing is not meant to assess the truth of allegations but only to see whether a prima facie case exists.”
Key Takeaways
Courts cannot assess the veracity of allegations at the stage of quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
- FIRs need only disclose a prima facie cognizable offence, not exhaustive details.
- “Mini-trial” by the High Court is impermissible; the trial court alone must determine truth or falsity.
- Judicial restraint is essential to maintain the balance between individual rights and public justice.
- The decision reaffirms the constitutional mandate that every allegation of a cognizable offence deserves investigation, unless patently absurd or malicious.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Muskan v. Ishaan Khan is a timely reaffirmation of the settled law that quashing jurisdiction cannot be converted into a fact-finding exercise. The Court has decisively rejected the tendency of some High Courts to assess the truth of allegations at the pre-trial stage, reiterating that such evaluation belongs to the domain of the trial court.
By restoring the FIR and emphasising judicial restraint, the judgment not only protects the complainant’s right to justice but also upholds the integrity of the criminal process. The Court has once again made it clear that Section 482 CrPC is not a substitute for trial, and that credibility of allegations must be tested only through evidence, not conjecture.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams