The Allahabad High Court recently quashed an FIR lodged by a Judicial Official of the State against his doctor-wife and two others after finding that the criminal proceedings were "not bona fide but malicious and also an abuse of the process of Court".

A Bench of Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II allowed a writ petition filed by the wife and two others while setting aside the FIR lodged by a Judicial Officer in January this year.

The Court took into account two circumstances: the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and, more significantly, the contradiction between the FIR's allegation that the wife was refusing to cooperate in the divorce proceedings unless paid ₹1 crore and the admitted fact that the divorce decree had already been passed several months before the FIR was lodged.

"…impugned criminal proceedings have been engineered by first informant respondent-4 on account of an ulterior motive and for an extraneous consideration. As such, criminal prosecution of petitioners is not bona fide but malicious and also an abuse of the process of Court", the bench observed in its order.

Case in brief

The FIR alleged that the incidents took place on various dates between May 26, 2021 to November 18, 2025. However, the FIR did not explicitly mentioned any specific day, date or time as to when those occurrences took place.

The primary allegation against the wife was that she refused to grant a divorce until she was paid ₹1 Crore. Challenging the FIR, the wife moved the High Court, arguing that the FIR was belated.

Accepting this submission, the division bench noted that the delay in lodging the FIR had not been sufficiently explained.

The Court then examined the circumstances underlying the FIR. It found a fundamental contradiction between the allegation of demand for money and the undisputed chronology on record.

The wife/petitioner pointed out that her husband had instituted a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was allowed, and divorce was decreed by the Family Court on September 8, 2025. The FIR, however, was lodged only on January 17, 2026.

Taking note of the same, the High Court questioned as to why the factum of the divorce decree granted by the competent Court in September 2025 was not disclosed in the FIR.

"Above statements of fact occurring in the FIR which is also the admitted case of the first informant respondent-4 is contrary to the record inasmuch as prior to the lodging of the FIR itself divorce decree had already been passed by the competent Court i.e. on 08.09.2025 whereas, the FIR was lodged on 17.01.2026", the Court remarked.

Thus, the allegation that the wife refused to cooperate in the divorce proceedings until the alleged ₹1 crore demand was met was found inconsistent with the fact that the divorce had already been granted before the FIR was registered.

After considering the unexplained delay and the contradiction concerning the divorce decree, the High Court remarked thus:

"…impugned criminal proceedings have been engineered by first informant respondent-4 on account of an ulterior motive and for an extraneous consideration…As such, criminal prosecution of petitioners is not bona fide but malicious and also an abuse of the process of Court".

The Court therefore concluded that the criminal prosecution arising from the FIR "cannot be sustained in law and fact".

Earlier, the couple had been referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad, after the petitioners submitted that the dispute was essentially private and matrimonial in nature.

However, the mediation report dated June 20, 2026, indicated that no settlement had been reached between the parties. The Court thereafter examined the challenge to the FIR on its merits.

The High Court ultimately allowed the writ petition and quashed the FIR lodged under Sections 318(1), 115(2), 352, 308(6), 329(1), 324(4), 351(2) and 221 of the BNS.

Advocate S. M. Faraz I. Kazmi, appeared for the petitioners.

AGA appeared for State-respondents 1, 2 & 3.

Advocate Kapil Tyagi, represented the first informant-respondent-4.

Case title - SR and two others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 608

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 608

Click Here To Read/Download Order