Many of you might be wondering whether to approach the court for quashing an FIR at the very initial stage, or to wait until the charge sheet is filed. From my experience with matrimonial disputes, particularly in cases under Section 498A IPC or Sections 85/86 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (BNS), I have often observed stays being granted on trial after the charge sheet is submitted. However, there are certain scenarios where it’s advisable to seek relief at the FIR stage itself, rather than waiting for the charge sheet to be filed.

Why is this important? Because going for quashing early can prevent police harassment during the investigation process, the potential threat of arrest, and the need to go through the burdensome process of applying for anticipatory bail. If the allegations in the FIR are vague, or if innocent family members like distant relatives have been wrongly implicated, quashing the FIR at an early stage becomes crucial. It saves time, stress, and legal expenses down the road.

Let me share a recent case I handled before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where I approached the court directly at the FIR stage, before any charge sheet had been filed. In this case, the party had first moved to the High Court for quashing the FIR, but the petition was dismissed. The High Court, instead of going into the merits of the case, passed a standard order relying on the *Arnesh Kumar* judgment, essentially directing the petitioner to wait for the charge sheet or follow the procedure laid down in *Arnesh Kumar* regarding arrests in matrimonial cases.

This is a common risk when you approach the High Court at the FIR stage—the court may not entertain the petition and may pass generic orders without delving into the specifics of your case. However, it is the duty of counsel to present the real crux of the matter, highlighting the frivolity or vagueness of the allegations so that interim relief can be obtained even at the FIR stage. If the facts are clearly in your favor and the accusations are unfounded, a well-prepared representation can lead to a stay on the investigation.

In the case I mentioned, the High Court initially dismissed the quashing petition, but after we moved to the Supreme Court, we successfully obtained interim directions to stay the investigation. The Supreme Court recognized the inherent unfairness of subjecting the petitioner to police scrutiny based on vague and generalized allegations.

So, whether to file for quashing at the FIR stage or after the charge sheet is filed largely depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. If the allegations are weak, and especially if multiple family members are being dragged into the case unjustly, an early intervention at the FIR stage is advisable. This ensures that you avoid unnecessary harassment and legal battles later on.

**My Experience at the Supreme Court: Securing a Stay on FIR and Investigation Proceedings**

In a case that highlights the complexities of matrimonial disputes and the far-reaching impact of Section 498A, I recently had the opportunity to argue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and secure a crucial stay on the FIR, investigation, and subsequent proceedings. The journey to the apex court was marked by legal challenges and strategic decisions, especially given the peculiar facts of the case.

The case involved a family embroiled in a property dispute, and the resulting FIR under Section 498A was not filed until 2024—29 years after the marriage, which had taken place in 1995. The complainant, in a clear attempt to exert pressure, implicated not only the husband but also his brother, the brother’s wife, and their children. The accusations were vague, general, and devoid of specific details. Yet, as many legal practitioners are aware, in India, the threat of a 498A FIR looms large over matrimonial relationships, no matter how long the marriage has lasted. This case was a testament to that reality.

### The High Court’s Rejection

When the matter was initially brought before the Telangana High Court, we sought to quash the FIR on the grounds of the absurdity of filing such allegations after nearly three decades of marriage. However, the High Court did not delve into the merits of our case. Instead, it relied on the procedural requirements laid out in the landmark *Arnesh Kumar* judgment, directing the Investigating Officer (IO) to issue a Section 41A notice and proceed with the investigation. The court was of the opinion that since the investigation was still in progress, the matter could not be quashed at that stage. This left us in a difficult position, especially as the allegations were clearly designed to harass the husband’s relatives, who had nothing to do with the alleged matrimonial cruelty.

### The Move to the Supreme Court

Undeterred by the setback at the High Court, we decided to escalate the matter to the Hon’ble Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP). The primary points we raised were as follows:

1. **The Duration of the Marriage**: We emphasized that the marriage was 29 years old and questioned how a wife could suddenly file an FIR under Section 498A after nearly three decades, especially when the relatives of the husband were being dragged into the case without any specific allegations.

2. **Vague and General Allegations**: The accusations against the husband’s relatives were nothing more than a stray mention that they “supported the husband in his acts of cruelty.” There were no concrete incidents or facts to substantiate these claims. The allegations were clearly made in bad faith, as part of a wider strategy to exert pressure on the family due to the underlying property dispute.

### The Supreme Court Hearing

At the Supreme Court, we presented these arguments, focusing heavily on the long-standing marriage and the baseless nature of the allegations. The Hon’ble Court was immediately struck by the absurdity of the situation—29 years of marriage, followed by a sudden 498A complaint against distant relatives with no direct involvement. This fact alone raised serious doubts about the legitimacy of the FIR.

During the hearing, I pressed for an interim stay on the investigation and the filing of the charge sheet. I highlighted that if the police were allowed to proceed with the charge sheet, it would complicate matters further. Once the charge sheet is filed, the case would progress to trial, and it would become increasingly difficult to address the meritless nature of the FIR in an effective manner.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of this argument. After careful consideration, the Court granted a stay on both the investigation and the filing of the charge sheet. This was a significant relief, not only because it paused the entire legal process, but also because it provided the much-needed breathing room to ensure that justice is done.

### The Outcome: A Victory on the First Date

Remarkably, the Supreme Court granted this stay on the very first date of hearing, without even issuing formal notice to the respondents at that stage. This immediate relief speaks to the strength of our arguments and the Court’s recognition of the injustice being meted out to the husband’s relatives.

### Reflections on the Case

This case highlights an important issue in matrimonial disputes—the misuse of Section 498A to target not just husbands, but entire families, often as a tool of harassment. The fact that an FIR can be filed after 29 years of marriage underscores the vulnerability of individuals accused under this section. While the law was originally intended to protect women from cruelty, its misuse in cases like this can cause immense hardship to innocent family members.

The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the investigation and other proceedings provides hope that justice will ultimately prevail. This case also serves as a reminder of the importance of strategic legal thinking—by focusing on the relatives rather than the husband initially, we were able to carve a path to victory, even after the High Court had refused to quash the FIR.

The legal battle is far from over, but this initial success at the Supreme Court has set the tone for the proceedings to come. The focus now shifts to securing a final resolution that will ensure that baseless and harassing allegations do not continue to cloud the lives of those who have been wrongfully accused.

Adv. Nitish Banka

9891549997

Nitish Banka

Nitish Banka is an advocate practicing in Supreme Court of India and can be reached at [email protected] or 9891549997