- Dwarka, Delhi
- 9818880502
- sach_truth00@yahoo.com
The case arose out of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in connection with allegations under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Following the rejection of relief by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition seeking protection from arrest and appropriate interim relief.
Case Type
Criminal Law / Matrimonial Offences
Date of Decision
29 December 2025
Court
Supreme Court of India
Duration
Ongoing criminal proceedings
Outcome
Interim Relief Granted (Arrest Stayed)
Appeal involved
Ongoing
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to interim protection from arrest during the pendency of investigation, considering the nature of allegations and the stage of the proceedings. The Court was also required to balance the petitioner’s right to personal liberty against the interests of investigation and the complainant.
The Supreme Court examined the factual background and the nature of allegations and observed that custodial arrest at the present stage was not necessary. The Court emphasized that arrest should not be used as a punitive measure and that cooperation with investigation can be ensured through appropriate conditions.
The Court further considered it appropriate to safeguard the interests of the complainant by directing payment of litigation expenses and ensuring her impleadment as a party to the proceedings. The issue of interim maintenance for the minor child was kept open for consideration on the next date of hearing, reflecting the Court’s balanced approach in matrimonial disputes.
Interim protection from arrest may be granted in matrimonial criminal cases where custodial interrogation is not necessary, provided the accused cooperates with the investigation. Courts may impose balanced conditions to protect the interests of the complainant while safeguarding personal liberty.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that interim protection from arrest was justified to preserve the liberty of the petitioner while the investigation continues. The Court highlighted that adequate safeguards, such as cooperation with the Investigating Officer and compliance with financial directions, sufficiently protect the interests of justice. It also noted that issues concerning maintenance of the child require careful judicial consideration and cannot be ignored.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the respondents and granted interim protection from arrest to the petitioner in connection with the FIR. The stay on arrest was made subject to the petitioner’s full cooperation with the investigation. The petitioner was also directed to deposit ₹30,000 towards litigation expenses payable to the complainant-wife. Consideration of interim maintenance for the minor child was deferred to the next hearing.
