Kamal vs State of Gujarat 2025: Section 498A IPC Case Judgement

The landmark judgement of Kamal vs State of Gujarat 2025 case drew attention as it highlighted concerns over the misuse of criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes, particularly the abuse of Section 498A IPC to harass husbands' relatives. It raised doubts about retaliatory FIRs filed after divorce summons, suggesting mala fide intent. The judgment provided important guidelines for High Courts on cautiously exercising their powers under Section 482 CrPC and clarified that minor family disagreements do not amount to cruelty under the law. Discover more in-depth analyses of important Supreme Court decisions by exploring Recent Judgements of Supreme Court.

Kamal vs State of Gujarat 2025 Introduction

The landmark judgement Kamal vs State of Gujarat 2025 revolves around the misuse of criminal law provisions in matrimonial disputes. It mainly concerns a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of an FIR lodged under Section 498A and Section 114 IPC by the wife, allegedly as a counterblast to ongoing divorce proceedings. The case highlights the tension between protecting women from cruelty and preventing the misuse of criminal law against relatives of the husband.

Download Kamal vs State of Gujarat 2025 Free PDF

The case at hand centres around a petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking the quashing of an FIR and criminal proceedings under Section 498A and Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellants i.e., husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant contended that the criminal proceedings are malicious and are retaliatory to pending divorce proceedings and constitute an abuse of the judicial process. The following are the facts of Kamal vs State of Gujarat -

Marriage and Divorce Proceedings

The Respondent No. 2 married the Appellant No.1 on 5th September, 2005. On 15th May, 2019, the Appellant No.1 initiated divorce proceedings against theRespondent No. 2. Authorities served the summons for the divorce case to the second Respondent on 17th July, 2019.

Lodging of FIR

On 20th July 2019, just three days after receiving the divorce summons, the Respondent No. 2 filed First Information Report at Chandkheda Police Station, District Ahmedabad City. She alleged mental harassment and made vague claims about demands related to her salary income. Following an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the Appellants under Section 498A and Section 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Petition for Quashing of Proceedings

The Appellants including Husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law approached the High Court of Gujarat by filing a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They sought to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandhinagar.

Grounds for Seeking Quashing

The Appellants argued that the Respondent No. 2 filed the FIR maliciously as a counterblast to the divorce proceedings. They contended that the allegations lacked specificity, largely revolved around the first appellant’s alleged extramarital affair rather than dowry demands and did not reference any concrete events of physical or mental harassment. They also pointed out that the parents-in-law lived separately from the complainant, rendering their implication mala fide. They highlighted that the complaint emerged unusually late after fourteen years of marriage and only after the service of the divorce summons.

Decision of the High Court and Appeal in the Supreme Court

The Gujarat High Court, by its order dated 1st February, 2024, dismissed the petition of the Appellants. It observed that since the FIR alleged mental harassment and monetary demands these issues should be examined during trial. The Court held that the veracity of the allegations could not be determined at the quashing stage.

The Appellants, aggrieved by the dismissal of their petition, filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court and challenged the order of the High Court.

Kamal vs State of Gujarat 2025 Legal Issues

The following issues were also addressed in Kamal vs State of Gujarat 2025:

• Whether FIRs Filed After Divorce Proceedings Indicate Mala Fide Intention?

The Supreme Court examined whether a criminal complaint filed shortly after the initiation of divorce proceedings indicates a malicious or retaliatory intent and requires deeper scrutiny.

• Scope of High Court’s Power under Section 482 CrPC to Quash Proceedings

The Supreme Court acknowledged the extent of the power of the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 especially in matrimonial disputes and highlighted the need for a cautious approach while considering quashing petitions.

• Vague and Non-Specific Allegations Against Relatives

Lastly, the Supreme Court in Kamal vs State of Gujarat also considered whether vague, general and non-specific allegations against the husband’s relatives (father-in-law and mother-in-law) could justify continuation of criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC.

Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and Section 498A of Indian Penal Code played an important role in Kamal vs State of Gujarat 2025. The following are the analysis of these provision:

Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 482 CrPC (Now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023) vests inherent powers in the High Court to make orders necessary to stop the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice .

Section 498A of Indian Penal Code: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty

Section 498A (Now Section 85 and Section 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) states that whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation

• Cruelty includes:

• Any willful conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health (mental or physical).
• Harassment with the intent to coerce the woman or her relatives to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security, or due to her or her relatives' failure to meet such demands.

Kamal vs State of Gujarat 2025 Judgment and Impact

On 16th April, 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Kamal vs State of Gujarat quashed the criminal proceedings against the father-in-law and mother-in-law but it allowed the case to continue only against the husband. The Supreme Court held that the allegations against the parents-in-law were vague, lacked specific details and appeared to be mala fide especially since the complaint was filed just three days after the wife was served summons in the divorce proceedings.

The Court highlighted that High Courts must adopt a cautious approach when dealing with petitions for quashing First Information Reports filed against relatives of the husband especially in matrimonial conflicts where allegations surface after years of marriage. The Court in Kamal vs State of Gujarat noted that trivial issues like minor taunts are often part of daily family life and do not automatically constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

The Supreme Court condemned the approach of the High Court and found it to be overly technical and pedantic. It reiterated that the courts must cautiously examine whether the allegations originated from an oblique motive particularly in cases where the criminal complaints arise after the initiation of divorce proceedings.

Thus, on the basis of the above findings, the Supreme Court in Kamal vs State of Gujarat set aside the order of the Gujarat High Court to the extent it dismissed the parents-in-law’s petition and directed that the criminal trial should proceed only against the appellant-husband.

Conclusion

The landmark judgement Kamal vs State of Gujarat 2025 the Supreme Court on 16th April, 2025 reinforced the principle that vague and mala fide allegations against distant relatives should not automatically lead to criminal trials. The decision highlighted protecting genuine victims while preventing the misuse of criminal proceedings as a tool of vengeance in matrimonial conflicts, ensuring a balanced and fair approach to justice