A Supreme Court Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, expressing concern that cases of cruelty by the husband are being filed on the smallest excuse, said Section 498A IPC cannot be applied mechanically and the legislature must look into the issue.
—
ON Friday, while quashing a first information report (FIR) lodged by a wife against her husband and in-laws for allegedly meting out cruelty to her, the Supreme Court observed that the police machinery should be used as a measure of last resort and that too in “very genuine” cases of cruelty and harassment.
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra made these observations while ruling on a petition filed by the husband against the Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court refusing to quash criminal proceedings against him for the offences under Sections 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Bench also observed that the police machinery could not be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends could squeeze him.
Background
On April 9, 2021, the wife lodged an FIR against her husband and his family members. The allegations were that her in-laws demanded dowry and thereby caused mental and physical trauma to the wife.
The Supreme Court observed that the police machinery should be used as a measure of last resort and that too in “very genuine” cases of cruelty and harassment.
It was also stated in the FIR that the family of the wife had spent a large sum at the time of marriage and had also handed over her ‘stridhan’ to the wife and his family. However, shortly after marriage, the husband and his family started harassing the wife on the false pretext that she had failed to discharge her duties as a wife and daughter-in-law and also pressured her for some more dowry.
The wife also alleged that her husband is an alcoholic and used to regularly raise his hands on her and treat her inhumanely. The wife claimed that upon complaining to her in-laws about the behavior of their son, they would take the side of their son and would pressure the wife to get some more dowry.
The wife also made allegations against her sister-in-law to the effect that she used to harass her for a diamond set and would threaten that failing to get one, she would be driven out of her matrimonial home.
Also read: Divorced wife not entitled to residence order under PWDVA: Bombay HC
The wife also claimed that she was serving as an assistant professor and that her husband and his family would keep her entire salary. She alleged that the husband would assault her whenever she asked for money, saying that she should ask her family to bear her expenses.
She also alleged that her husband was having an extramarital affair with another woman, and he would threaten her with dire consequences if she told anyone of his affair.
Pertinently, the husband had filed a divorce petition in July 2019, that is, much before the wife filed an FIR alleging cruelty.
The wife also alleged that after filing for the divorce, the husband stopped paying anything towards her maintenance and also disconnected basic facilities such as water connection, leaving her with no option but to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parent’s house at Hisar.
After investigating the matter, the police filed a chargesheet on October 13, 2021, but only against the husband. The police submitted a closure report against family members.
What did the high court do?
The husband filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking to quash the FIR against him. The high court on April 5, 2022, declined to quash the FIR against the husband.
The high court opined that it was not a case to invoke inherent powers to quash the FIR. The high court referred to the allegations of beating and dowry made by the wife.
The wife also alleged that her husband is an alcoholic and used to regularly raise his hands on her and treat her inhumanely.
It opined that the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court mandate that in a case where from the bare reading of the allegations in the FIR no cognisable offence is made out or the FIR has been lodged to wreak vengeance, then the high court may intervene.
It said that the veracity of the allegations levelled by the complainant can be assessed only after a thorough investigation by the trial court based on the evidence laid before it.
Proceedings before the Supreme Court
It is in this background the husband approached the Supreme Court. He argued that he and his family had filed a divorce petition and also a domestic violence case against his wife in 2019 and 2020 respectively.
Also read: The Indian domestic violence scenario is chilling
As a counterblast to the same, the wife lodged an FIR against them on April 9, 2021, that is, more than 11 months from the date the wife left her matrimonial home and that too, only after the service of summons to her in the domestic violence case.
The husband also argued that the FIR was filed with an oblique motive and by way of vengeance towards him. The couple was married for over 12 years. The allegations in the FIR are too vague and general. There is no specific allegation or incident of harassment levelled against the husband in the FIR.
The wife alleged that the husband failed to inform the court that he had withdrawn the divorce proceedings instituted against the wife.
The police did not argue much before the Supreme Court. It only submitted that after conducting a fair investigation, they dropped the names of the family members and filed a chargesheet against the husband only.
Allegations are vague, sweeping
The Bench opined that the allegations levelled by the wife were quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. The Bench emphasised that in the FIR, no specific date or time of any alleged offence had been disclosed.
The Bench observed that even the police thought fit to drop the proceedings against the other members of the husband’s family and thus it could be said the wife lodged the FIR as a counterblast to the divorce petition and also the domestic violence case filed against her.
The high court opined that it was not a case to invoke inherent powers to quash the FIR.
The Bench also took note of the fact that the husband had filed a divorce petition in July 2019 on the ground of cruelty. The divorce petition was withdrawn as he was finding it difficult to take care of his child while travelling all the way to Hisar on the dates fixed by the court.
The husband’s mother filed a domestic violence case against the daughter-in-law in October 2020 under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Also read: Rising violence against women in India calls for an alternative legal system
The Bench also held delay in lodging the FIR against the wife. It opined that the wife registered the FIR on April 9, 2021, that is, nearly two years after the filing of the divorce petition by the husband and six months after the filing of the domestic violence case by her mother-in-law.
“Thus, the first informant remained silent for nearly two years after the divorce petition was filed. With such an unexplained delay in filing the FIR, we find that the same was filed only to harass the appellant and his family members,” the Bench observed.
On the high court’s power under Section 482 CrPC, the Bench opined that there is nothing in the words of Section 482 of the CrPC that restricts the exercise of the power of the court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR.
“It would be a travesty of justice to hold that the proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has materialised into a chargesheet,” the Bench said.
It added that once the investigation is over and the chargesheet has been filed, the FIR pales into insignificance. The court, thereafter, owes a duty to look into all the materials collected by the investigating agency in the form of chargesheet.
Abuse of the process of law
The Bench held the prosecution against the husband was an abuse of the process of law. It said if a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.
“The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute,” the Bench ruled.
Principle laid down in State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal should be applied liberally.
Both the wife and the state government argued that the high court was justified in not embarking upon an enquiry as regards the truthfulness or reliability of the allegations in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC, as once there are allegations disclosing the commission of a cognisable offence then whether they are true or false should be left to the trial court to decide.
Also read: Emerging challenges on women and law in India – II: challenges for women in criminal law
The Bench disagreed with the submission. It referred to the decision in State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal, a locus classicus on the powers of the high court to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
The high court said that the veracity of the allegations levelled by the complainant can be assessed only after a thorough investigation by the trial court based on the evidence laid before it.
In Bhajan Lal, the Supreme Court laid down seven categories where the high court would be justified in quashing criminal cases. They are:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognisable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the code except under an Order of a magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognisable offence but constitute only a non-cognisable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an Order of a magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
Also read: Interpretation of Section 498A IPC: Conflicting judicial decisions and overstepping the legislature
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
To reject the argument of the wife and the State, the Bench invoked category 7. The Bench said that category 7 should be taken into consideration and applied in a case such as the one on hand a bit liberally.
“If the court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of her husband and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of a cognisable offence, the court with a view to doing substantial justice should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter,” the Bench observed.
It further observed that if the submission canvassed by the wife and the State is to be accepted mechanically, then the very conferment of the inherent power by the CrPC upon the high court would be rendered otiose.
The wife alleged that the husband failed to inform the court that he had withdrawn the divorce proceedings instituted against the wife.
“We are saying so for the simple reason that if the wife on account of matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband and his family members then the first thing she would ensure is to see that proper allegations are levelled in the first information report.
“Many times the services of professionals are availed for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same,” the Bench said.
The police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom
The Bench observed that there may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary.
The Police machinery, the Bench opined, should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment.
“The police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends,” the Bench said.
Many times, the Bench said, the parents, including the close relatives of the wife, make a mountain out of a molehill.
Instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members brings about complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues.
The Bench claimed that the first thing that comes to the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is to approach the police as if the police are the panacea of all evil.
“No sooner the matter reaches the police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another.
“Tolerance to each other’s faults to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven,” the Bench underscored.
Section 498A cannot be applied mechanically
The Bench also observed that in all cases where the wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically.
“No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life may also not amount to cruelty,” the Bench said.
Bench wants legislature to relook verbatim of 498A in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
In Preeti Gupta versus State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court had observed that it was a matter of common experience that most of the complaints under Section 498A of the IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.
Also read: To marry or not to marry: Is the choice a right or a luxury?
The court had then observed that 498A of the IPC required a serious relook by the legislature. The court had said it was a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident were reflected in a large number of complaints.
The Bench opined that there is nothing in the words of Section 482 of the CrPC that restricts the exercise of the power of the court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR.
It had thus asked the legislature to consider the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in existing law.
“It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law,” the Supreme Court had said in Preeti Gupta.
The Bench has now noted that Sections 85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which is to come into force with effect from July 1, 2024 is nothing but verbatim reproduction of Section 498A of the IPC.
The Bench has again asked the legislature to look into the issue of the pragmatic realities and consider making necessary changes in Sections 85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, before both the new provisions come into force.
The Bench has directed the registry to send one copy of the judgment to the Union law secretary and Union home secretary, who may place it before the minister for law and justice as well as the minister for home.
The Bench has directed the registry to send one copy of the judgment to the Union law secretary and Union home secretary, who may place it before the minister for law and justice as well as the minister for home.
It is not the first time that the Supreme Court has felt agitated on complaints under Section 498A IPC by the wife which they have found to be frivolous.
In 2022, the Supreme Court observed that there has been an increase in the tendency to employ dowry allegations as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.
It opined that the false implications under Section 498A by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law.
In its decisions in Rajesh Sharma & Ors. versus State of U.P. & Anr. (2017); Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar & Anr. (2014); Preeti Gupta & Anr. versus State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010); Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. versus State of U.P. & Anr. (2012), and K. Subba Rao versus The State of Telangana (2018), the court had expressed concern over the ‘misuse’ of Section 498A of the IPC.
Click here to read the judgment.
