New Delhi: The Supreme Court has flagged a “worrying trend” of rising vexatious litigation, particularly in matrimonial disputes, cautioning that criminal law is increasingly being misused as a tool to settle personal scores and exert pressure on opposing parties.
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made these observations while quashing criminal proceedings initiated against a man and his family in a POCSO case, setting aside an Allahabad High Court order that had refused to quash the complaint, the cognisance order, and the summoning order issued by a court in Meerut.
In its judgment, the apex court observed that parties embroiled in matrimonial or commercial conflicts are increasingly resorting to “frivolous and vexatious” criminal complaints as a means of harassment and retaliation.
“We also painfully take judicial cognizance of the fact that the courts of law are being misused and overburdened by such vague and vexatious litigations……to antagonise, pressurise, hound and harass the spouse and their family members,” the Justice Nagarathna-led Bench said.
Highlighting the broader impact, the top court observed that the surge in false cases often overshadows genuine grievances, thereby delaying justice for those truly in need.
It said such litigation is frequently used as an “arm-twisting” tactic to secure favourable settlements or extract monetary benefits.
“The onus is on courts to separate the wheat from the chaff,” the Supreme Court observed, stressing the need to distinguish legitimate cases of matrimonial oppression from those driven by malice and revenge.
It further warned against a growing pattern of a “matrimonial bouquet” of cases, where multiple criminal provisions — including dowry harassment and domestic violence laws — are invoked together, often with sweeping and unsubstantiated allegations against not only the spouse but also extended family members.
Such complaints, the Bench said, often contain “vague and sweeping general allegations” without specific details or supporting evidence, aimed at widening the net of prosecution to include as many family members as possible.
It flagged instances where serious charges under the POCSO Act are allegedly invoked as a pressure tactic in matrimonial or civil disputes, including cases where children are used as instruments in personal conflicts between estranged parents.
“A recent trend… is when the wife resorts to filing false complaints under the POCSO Act… against the father… to exact revenge or as an arm-twisting tactic to obtain a higher monetary settlement or to simply harass,” the judgment said.
It cautioned that such misuse not only burdens the judiciary but also diverts attention and resources away from genuine cases, leading to delays in justice delivery.
The Supreme Court stressed that while genuine cases of sexual abuse and violence against women and children deserved utmost judicial attention, allegations that are “prima facie vague, omnibus and general in nature” and unsupported by material evidence should be scrutinised at the threshold.
“If a person is made an accused and forced to face a criminal trial on general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it would tantamount to an abuse of the process of law and court,” the Justice Nagarathna-led Bench said.
The judgment stressed that courts must conduct a “thorough scrutiny” at the threshold to determine whether allegations disclose a prima facie case or are merely intended to harass the accused through prolonged criminal proceedings.
It also placed responsibility on the legal fraternity, urging lawyers to refrain from advising clients to initiate false or exaggerated criminal proceedings and instead encourage resolution of disputes without resorting to abuse of legal process.
“Invoking criminal process is a serious matter with penal consequences… and can be permitted only when specific acts constituting offences are alleged,” the apex court said, warning against the “disastrous consequences” of criminalising domestic disputes without credible material.
The apex court ultimately held that permitting prosecution based on vague, omnibus, and unsubstantiated allegations would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and accordingly quashed the complaint case along with the cognisance order and the summoning order passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Meerut.
However, the Bench clarified that its observations would not affect any other matrimonial or related proceedings pending between the parties, which would be decided independently on their own merits.
(IANS)
