The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal filed by Sivaraman Nair and others (father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant) and has quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.1318 of 2016 registered at Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, insofar as the appellants are concerned. Justice Augustine George Masih, authoring the judgment for the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and himself, in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9195 of 2025, set aside the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Crl.M.C. No.5826 of 2023 which had declined to quash the proceedings against the appellants under Sections 494 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The complainant-respondent No.2 had married Syam Sivaraman Nair on 19.12.2007. She lodged a complaint on 24.08.2016 alleging dowry harassment, physical assault and mental torture by her husband from the inception of marriage. She further alleged that her husband had contracted a second marriage with one Simran G. on 21.05.2013 in Andhra Pradesh by suppressing the fact of his first marriage, and that the appellants (his parents and sister) were aware of the same, had encouraged the cruelty, received dowry amounts paid by her brother and had also colluded in the sale of 153 sovereigns of gold gifted to her at the time of marriage. The FIR was registered under Sections 494 and 498A read with Section 34 IPC. After investigation, chargesheet was filed on 11.09.2018, charges were framed and the accused pleaded not guilty. In July 2023, the appellants approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings against them, which was refused by the impugned order.
Before the Supreme Court, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the allegations against them were vague and general, consisting merely of their “presence” or “encouragement” without any specific overt acts constituting cruelty or participation in the second marriage. It was urged that the appellants were aged persons who were not residing with the complainant during the relevant period and had no role in her marital life. Reliance was placed on Geddam Jhansi and Another v. State of Telangana and Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 263) and S. Nitheen and Others v. State of Kerala and Another (2024) 8 SCC 706 to contend that criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes cannot be allowed to continue on the basis of sweeping and unsubstantiated allegations against family members.
Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, contended that the appellants were not strangers to the matrimonial home at Mavelikkara and had actively contributed to the cruelty by receiving money, colluding in the sale of gold and encouraging the husband’s second marriage, as evident from photographs and other material.
The Supreme Court, after carefully examining the FIR, chargesheet and the material on record, observed that the gravamen of the complaint was directed against the husband with specific allegations of assault, dowry demand and torture. The allegations against the appellants, however, were found to be “less of that of active involvement and are mostly that of them being present or encouraging the harassment meted out by the accused-husband”. The Court reiterated the caution expressed in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others v. State of Telangana and Another (2025) 3 SCC 735 that “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”.
Dealing specifically with the charge under Section 494 IPC (bigamy), the Court held that liability under the said provision cannot extend to any person other than the spouse alleged to have contracted the second marriage unless there is evidence of overt act or omission by the accused persons in the solemnisation of the second marriage. The Court categorically ruled that “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.”
The Court further noted the significant delay in lodging the FIR (alleged incidents between 2007-2015, FIR in 2016) but did not rest its decision on that ground alone. Applying the principles governing exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC as laid down in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Supreme Court held that the continuation of proceedings against the appellants would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Kerala High Court and quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.1318 of 2016 qua the appellants. The appeal was allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
Case Title: Sivaraman Nair and Others v. State of Kerala and Another
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. __ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9195 of 2025)
Date of Judgment: 24 April 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 