Supreme Court Dismisses MP Police Plea Against Quashing Of FIR Against Congress MLA Umang Singhar Alleging Marital Cruelty

The Supreme Court today refused to interfere with the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashing the FIR against Congress MLA Umang Singhar over alleged domestic violence and cruelty towards his wife.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and AS Chandurkar was hearing the challenge by the State to the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The bench was told by the respondent that the FIR was lodged only after Singhar filed cases against his wife.

Refusing to interfere with the impugned order, the bench dismissed the plea. 

Before The MP High Court

Before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Singhar had filed  S. 482 CrPC petition seeking quashing of the the FIR registered vide Crime No.540/2022 at Police Station Naogaon, District Dhar on the fulcrum of a complaint made by his wife against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 376(2)(n), 377, 498-A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner before the High Court also informed that before the FIR was filed, the petitioner filed a complaint against his wife over her violent conduct towards him and the staff members. The petitioner had also filed a suit for damages after the wife allegedly raised a demand of Rs. 10 crores. 

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR against him. In doing so the High Court reasoned that (1) both the petitioner and his wife have a political background and knew each other before marrying; (2) both have filed cases against each other, the petitioner filed suit for damages while the wife filed FIR againt him; (3) there is not disclosure of exact date, place and time of the alleged instances of marital rape and domestic violence; (4) offence of S.498A IPC cannot be made as there is no allegation for dowry demand as per the complaint; (5) the present FIR is a malicious prosecution. 

The relevant paragraph of the High Order reads : 

"Considering the overall fact-situation of the case at hand, it is clear that the petitioner and respondent No.2 hold political posts in the same political party; knowing each other since long; prosecutrix entered into marriage with petitioner; their relationship after some time of marriage became estranged; complaints were made by them against each other; the petitioner filed a suit for damages; FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 without disclosing any specific date, time and place of committing alleged offence by the petitioner but only specified that from 15.11.2021 to 16.11.2022 offence was committed whereas during their married time, they visited several places, enjoyed honeymoon, therefore, in my opinion the act of the petitioner is not punitive for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and Section 377 of IPC. Quite apart, for constituting offence under Section 498-A IPC, there is no allegation of any demand of dowry. At the most offence under the Domestic Violence Act could have been registered, but that too immediately after commission of such crime. For other offences i.e. Sections 294 and 506 of IPC, no date, place and time has been disclosed and as such the complaint in my opinion is a malicious prosecution filed by respondent No.2 as there was inter se dispute between husband and wife." 

Case Details : STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Versus UMANG SINGHAR AND ORS| Diary No. 12496-2025  

Click Here To Read/Download Order