Quick Answer: A private complaint filed months after the incident, which suppresses an FIR already lodged by the accused side on the same day and already charge-sheeted, bears the hallmark of a retaliatory counterblast. The Supreme Court quashed such a complaint against an entire family, including three women, arising from a long-standing land dispute, holding that unexplained delay, suppression and the civil substratum together made its continuation an abuse of process.
In Anita Maurya & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2026 INSC 806), the Supreme Court held that a complaint instituted in 2021 over an incident of 09.11.2020, which did not disclose the FIR lodged by the appellants' side on the day of the incident and the charge-sheet filed on 30.11.2020, was a retaliatory counterblast falling within categories (1), (5) and (7) of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (paras 21–25). A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside the Allahabad High Court's order refusing to quash the proceedings under Section 528 BNSS and quashed the complaint and the summoning order (paras 26–27).
Status: Allahabad High Court's order dated 21.01.2026 set aside; Complaint Case No. 909 of 2021, the summoning order dated 10.02.2025 and all consequential proceedings quashed; appeal allowed (paras 26–27).
Headnote: Quashing of Retaliatory Counter-Complaint
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 200, 202, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323, 354, 452 – Quashing of private complaint – Counterblast to earlier FIR – Suppression of antecedent FIR and charge-sheet – Unexplained delay – Civil dispute over land given criminal colour – Summoning of entire family – Bhajan Lal categories.
Held: (i) Inherent power is to be used sparingly, but the court need not shut its eyes to a manifest abuse; where mala fide or oblique motive is alleged, the court may look beyond the four corners of the complaint and read between the lines (paras 15–17).
(ii) A dispute essentially civil in character cannot be clothed as a criminal offence, and the criminal process is not a substitute for civil remedies (para 18).
(iii) Deliberate and unexplained delay in setting the criminal law in motion may itself justify quashing, as it indicates an oblique motive rather than a genuine grievance (paras 19–20, 22).
(iv) A complaint that suppresses a pre-existing FIR by the accused on the same incident, filed after that FIR has ripened into a charge-sheet, bears the hallmark of a retaliatory counterblast (paras 21, 23).
(v) Summoning an entire family, including three women, on a solitary and belated version does not reflect the careful application of mind that issuance of process demands (para 24).
(vi) The case falls within categories (1), (5) and (7) of Bhajan Lal, and continuation of the complaint is an abuse of process (para 25).
(paras 15–27)
Case Details: Anita Maurya v. State of U.P. (2026 INSC 806)
Final Outcome: Appeal allowed; High Court's order set aside; complaint, summoning order and all consequential proceedings quashed.
Case: Anita Maurya and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 806
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5592 of 2026)
Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable
Date of Decision: 23 July 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih (author)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Section 528 BNSS, 2023 (Section 482 CrPC); Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, 1973; Sections 323, 354 and 452 IPC, 1860
Impugned Order: Allahabad High Court – order dated 21.01.2026 in Application under Section 528 BNSS No. 756 of 2026, declining to quash Complaint Case No. 909 of 2021 and the summoning order dated 10.02.2025 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First, Court No. 12, Jaunpur (para 2)
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- Where mala fide is alleged, the court is not confined to the averments of the complaint and must examine it more closely (paras 16–17).
- Criminal process cannot be used to pursue a dispute that is essentially civil (paras 18, 24).
- Unexplained delay in filing a complaint, set against an existing proceeding on the same facts, points to an oblique motive (paras 19–20, 22).
- Suppressing the accused side's earlier FIR and charge-sheet on the same incident marks the complaint as a retaliatory counterblast (paras 21, 23).
- Summoning the entire family, including three women, on a belated solitary version shows lack of application of mind by the Magistrate (para 24).
- The High Court erred in confining itself to the bare averments and treating the material as raising only disputed facts (para 25).
- Nothing in the judgment affects the merits of the earlier FIR, its charge-sheet or the civil dispute (para 28).
Brief Facts of the Case
The eight appellants belong to one family from a village in Jaunpur district, Uttar Pradesh; appellants 1 to 3 are the women of the household. A land dispute had long subsisted between their branch of the family and the respondent-complainant's branch, and the complainant had earlier filed a Public Interest Litigation on it, disposed of on 28.07.2021 with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide his representation (paras 3–4).
On 09.11.2020, the day of the incident, appellant No. 4 lodged FIR No. 405 of 2020 against the complainant and three others under Sections 188, 323, 504, 506 and 342 IPC. A charge-sheet was filed on 30.11.2020, and the trial has commenced (para 5).
In 2021, the complainant filed Complaint Case No. 909 of 2021 on the same incident, alleging assault and house-trespass against the entire appellant family. The complaint did not disclose the earlier FIR or the charge-sheet (para 6).
On 10.02.2025, after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, the Magistrate summoned appellants 4 to 8 under Sections 323, 354 and 452 IPC and the three women under Sections 323 and 452 IPC. The revision was dismissed on 26.11.2025, and on 21.01.2026 the High Court declined to quash the proceedings, leaving the appellants to seek discharge (paras 7–9).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the continuation of the complaint against the appellants would amount to an abuse of the process of the court (para 14).
- Whether the High Court was right in confining itself to the averments of the complaint and treating the appellants' material as disputed questions of fact (paras 9, 25).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Scope of inherent power: Relying on Bhajan Lal, the Court noted that the power under Section 482 CrPC, now Section 528 BNSS, is to be exercised sparingly and not to conduct a mini trial, but these restraints do not require the court to ignore a manifest abuse. Following Mahmood Ali and Mohammad Wajid, it held that where mala fide is alleged the court must look at the complaint "with care and a little more closely" and may read between the lines (paras 15–17).
Civil dispute in criminal garb: Citing G. Sagar Suri, the Court reiterated that a matter essentially civil cannot be given the cloak of a criminal offence (para 18).
Unexplained delay: Relying on Kishan Singh and Nazibul Rahim Khan, the Court held that deliberate, unexplained delay may itself justify quashing. Here, the incident was of 09.11.2020, the appellants' FIR was lodged the same day and charge-sheeted on 30.11.2020, but the complaint was filed only in 2021 without any explanation (paras 19–20, 22).
Suppression and counterblast: Applying Anukul Singh, the Court found that the complaint suppressed the antecedent FIR and charge-sheet; the complainant, whose own side already faced a charge-sheet, set the law in motion afresh against the whole opposing family, which bears the hallmark of a retaliatory counterblast (paras 21, 23).
Civil substratum and summoning: The dispute was at root a long-standing quarrel over land. Allowing a belated complaint suppressing the earlier FIR to proceed against the entire family would make the criminal process an instrument of harassment; summoning all, including the three women, showed lack of careful application of mind (para 24).
Error of the High Court: The High Court looked only at the bare averments. Where indicia of mala fide appear on record, the court is obliged to look beyond the averments. The cumulative effect brought the case within categories (1), (5) and (7) of Bhajan Lal (para 25).
Final Outcome and Directions
- The High Court's order dated 21.01.2026 is set aside (para 26).
- Complaint Case No. 909 of 2021, the summoning order dated 10.02.2025 and all consequential proceedings are quashed (para 27).
- No opinion is expressed on FIR No. 405 of 2020, its charge-sheet, or the civil dispute, which will proceed on their own merits (para 28).
- Pending applications disposed of (para 29).
Legal Principle Laid Down
A private complaint that is filed after unexplained delay, suppresses an earlier FIR and charge-sheet lodged by the accused side on the same incident, and arises out of an essentially civil dispute, bears the hallmark of a retaliatory counterblast. In such cases the court exercising power under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) must look beyond the averments, and continuation of the complaint is an abuse of process falling within categories (1), (5) and (7) of Bhajan Lal.
Precedents Relied Upon
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 – Relied upon – illustrative categories for quashing. Discussed at paras 15, 25.
- Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 10 SCC 544 – Relied upon – court to read between the lines where mala fide is alleged. Discussed at para 16.
- Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 INSC 683 – Relied upon – duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. Discussed at para 17.
- G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636 – Relied upon – civil disputes not to be given criminal cloak. Discussed at paras 18, 24.
- Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 775 – Relied upon – unexplained delay may be fatal. Discussed at paras 19, 22.
- Nazibul Rahim Khan v. State of U.P., 2026 INSC 619 – Relied upon – time gap as indicator of bona fides. Discussed at paras 20, 22.
- Anukul Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 1153 – Relied upon – retaliatory counterblast and suppression. Discussed at paras 21, 23.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 16: "Where mala fide or an oblique motive is alleged, the court is not confined to the four corners of the complaint."
Para 18: "It is equally settled that a dispute essentially civil in character is not to be permitted to be clothed as a criminal offence, and that the criminal process is not a substitute for the remedies available in law."
Para 21: "A complaint that suppresses a pre-existing FIR lodged by the accused in respect of the same incident, and that is instituted after such report has ripened into a charge-sheet, bears the hallmark of a retaliatory counterblast."
Para 22: "Such deliberate and unexplained delay, set against a subsisting antecedent proceeding on the same facts, is precisely the circumstance which, in Kishan Singh (supra) and Nazibul Rahim Khan (supra), was held to point to an oblique motive rather than to a genuine grievance."
Para 24: "The summoning of the entire family, including the three women, upon a solitary and belated version, does not reflect the careful application of mind by the Magistrate that the issuance of process demands."
Para 25: "Where, however, the indicia of mala fide and abuse of process appear on the record, the court is not merely entitled but obliged to look beyond the averments and to prevent the perpetuation of the abuse."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For accused facing cross-cases: A later complaint that hides your earlier FIR and charge-sheet on the same incident can be challenged as a counterblast (paras 21, 23).
- For Magistrates: Summoning a whole family, especially women, on a belated solitary version requires careful application of mind (para 24).
- For High Courts: In Section 528 BNSS petitions alleging mala fide, the court must look beyond the bare averments, not relegate the accused to discharge (para 25).
- For complainants: Delay must be explained, and earlier proceedings on the same incident must be disclosed (paras 22–23).
- For land disputes: Civil quarrels over property cannot be pursued through criminal complaints as an instrument of harassment (para 24).
FAQs on Quashing of Counter-Complaints
1. What did the Supreme Court hold in Anita Maurya v. State of U.P.?
It quashed a 2021 private complaint against a family of eight, holding it to be a retaliatory counterblast to an FIR lodged by them on the day of the incident, and an abuse of process (paras 25–27).
2. Why was the complaint considered a counterblast?
Because it was filed after unexplained delay on the same incident, suppressed the appellants' earlier FIR and charge-sheet, and targeted the entire opposing family (paras 21–23).
3. Can a court look beyond the complaint when deciding a quashing petition?
Yes. Where mala fide or oblique motive is alleged, the court may examine the overall circumstances and read between the lines (paras 16–17, 25).
4. Which Bhajan Lal categories applied?
Categories (1), (5) and (7) – allegations not constituting an offence, inherently improbable allegations, and proceedings instituted with mala fide or to wreak vengeance (para 25).
5. Does the judgment affect the appellants' own FIR?
No. The Court clarified that FIR No. 405 of 2020, its charge-sheet and the civil dispute will be decided on their own merits (para 28).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 806, Anita Maurya v. State of U.P., Section 528 BNSS quashing, counterblast complaint, suppression of earlier FIR, unexplained delay in complaint, Bhajan Lal categories, civil dispute criminal colour, summoning entire family, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court judgment, criminal law
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Anita Maurya v. State of U.P.
Judgment PDF: 2026 INSC 806 – Anita Maurya & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (SLP (Crl.) No. 5592 of 2026) – Download Judgment PDF
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).
![No Investigation, No Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Five in Bihar Murder Case – Dhrub Singh v. State of Bihar [2026 INSC 935]](/assets/images/article-criminal.svg)