Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal filed against the order passed by the Telangana High Court, wherein the Court refusing to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused persons under Section of the (‘IPC’) and Section and of the (‘Dowry Act’), the division bench of BV Nagarathna* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. while setting aside the impugned order, and quashing the FIR, opined that the impugned FIR was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against the husband and his family members.
Further, the Court held that the High Court erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section of the (‘CrPC’) and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the accused persons.
Background
In this case, the marriage between the husband and wife was solemnized in 2015, according to Hindu rites and rituals. The wife’s family filed a complaint against the husband’s family under Section of the (cruelty by husband or his relatives) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act (demanding and accepting dowry).
Being aggrieved by the said criminal proceedings pending against them, the accused persons approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR under Section . By the impugned order, the High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings and directed the Investigation Officer to follow the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section of and also the guidelines issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar . Aggrieved, the accused persons filed the present appeal.
Issue: Whether FIR lodged against the accused persons should be quashed?
Analysis and Decision:
The Court took note of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, , wherein the parameters under which the powers under Section of the could be exercised were formulated.
The Court further took note of Section of the and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act and discussed the Sections and punishments under them in detail.
After perusing the FIR, the Court noted that the allegations made by the wife are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that the husband harassed her and that in-laws instigated him to do so, the wife has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.
The Court observed that the wife left the matrimonial home in 2021, prompting the husband to file a police complaint. When the police traced her, she addressed a letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, requesting the closure of the husband’s complaint. In her letter, she admitted that she had left her matrimonial home after a quarrel with her husband, who got triggered by her continuous communication with a man over the phone for the past ten days. She further acknowledged that her husband had been taking good care of her and expressed her intention not to engage in such behavior in the future. Despite this, the wife left the matrimonial home again later in 2021, leaving the husband and their minor children behind. Losing hope in the marriage, the husband issued a legal notice to the wife seeking divorce by mutual consent. Instead of responding to the said legal notice issued by the husband, she lodged the present FIR.
Therefore, the Court opined that the FIR filed by the wife is not a genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with the husband and his family members.
The Court observed that the allegations made by the wife in the FIR were motivated by a desire for retribution rather than a legitimate grievance. Further, the Court said that the in-laws have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. There were no substantial and specific allegations made against them. Further, they never resided with the couple and their children. Hence, the Court concluded that the husband’s family cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.
The Court said that “a mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud”.
Noting that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of matrimonial discord, the Court highlighted that such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.
Further, the Bench suggested that the Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.
In light of the facts presented, the Court concluded that the allegations made by the wife against the husband and his family are “too far-fetched” and not believable.
The Court remarked that the “inclusion of Section of the by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section of the as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife”.
The Court stated that making vague and generalized allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, leads to the misuse of legal processes and encourages the use of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section of the against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.
The Court clarified that it is not suggesting that any woman who has suffered cruelty, as defined under Section of the , should remain silent or refrain from making a complaint or initiating criminal proceedings. However, the Court emphasized that false cases, such as the present one where a complaint under Section 498A is lodged by the wife in retaliation for the husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage, should be discouraged. The Court reminded that the purpose of inserting Section 498A into the IPC was primarily to protect women who face cruelty in their matrimonial homes, particularly when it stems from unlawful demands for property or valuable security in the form of dowry.
The Court opined that the impugned FIR was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against the husband and his family members. Hence, the present case falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal (supra). Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the accused persons.
Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and quashed the FIR and chargesheet against the husband and his family members.
CASE DETAILS
| Citation: Diary No.2447/2024 Appellants : Dara Lakshmi Narayana Respondents : State of Telangana | Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): Mr. Shubham Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Jain, Adv. Ms. Nayan Saini, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Goyal, Adv. Ms. Honey Verma, Adv. Mr. Rahul Mohod, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Gyan, Adv. Dr. Varnit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR For Respondent(s): Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. S Uday Bhanu, Adv. |
CORAM :
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .