When FIR under SECTION 498-A OF IPC
could be quashed
Recently the Supreme Court has laid
down criteria for quashing the F.I.R u/s
498-A of Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court in a matter bearing no. 2024 INSC 369 and captioned as Achin Gupta Vs State of Haryana,
have, comprehensively, dealt with the aspect. is significant to note that ever since, the
section 498-A of IPC is brought in the statute book i.e in 1984, its rampant
misuse is reported. This is not to say, that the section was ill conceived. In
fact, it served its purpose s well, but the aspect of misuse of it is also
rampant and that is the cause of concern, over the years. Periodically, the
Supreme Court has laid guidelines, still, some improvement is always craved
for. The Supreme Court has, given the sanctity of marriage, have amply dealt
with in several cases that section 498-A of IPC could not be invoked in omnibus manner and with a view to settle
score with relatives of husband and such complaints could be quashed by invoking
provisions of Section 482 of Indian Penal Code by the High Courts.
In the above backdrop, the
discussion herein follows:
1.
That the High Court of Punjab & Haryana In Achin
Gupta Supra) had declined to
quash the charge sheet in F.I.R dated 05.04.2022 in the Criminal Main No.
14198-2022 (CRM-M-14198-2022) filed by the Appellant for the offences
punishable under Section 323, 406, 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short, the “IPC”) arising from the First Information Report No. 95 of 2021
lodged by the wife of the Appellant) at the Urban Estate Hisar Police Station,
District Hisar (Haryana).
2.
That a bare perusal of F.I.R would indicate that the Appellant and
his family members are alleged to have demanded dowry and thereby caused mental
and physical trauma to the complainant- wife. It was also stated in the F.I.R that
the family of the complainant had spent a large sum at the time of marriage and
had also handed over her ‘stridhan’ to the Appellant and his family. However, soon thereafter, the
Appellant and his family started harassing the complainant on the false pretext
alleging that she had failed to discharge her duties as a wife and
daughter-in-law and also demanded some more dowry. The Appellant is alleged to
be an alcoholic, had extra marital relationship and used to regularly raise his
hands on the complainant and she was subjected to inhuman treatment. It was also
stated in F.I.R that father and mother of the husband of complainant would always take the side of their son i.e.,
the Appellant herein. The father and mother was also arrayed as accused no.2
and 3 and would pressurize the First Informant to get something more towards
dowry.
3.
That it was also alleged that the accused
persons have ignored the complainant due to their dowry demand and they have
even not returned the complainant, her stridhan and threatened her that if
without fulfilling their demand of dowry, if the complainant comes to their
house, they will kill her. The complainant also alleged that she was serving as an
Assistant Professor and that the Appellant and his family would keep her entire
salary. The Appellant would assault her whenever she would ask for money,
saying that the First Informant should ask her family to bear her personal
expenses. The Appellant allegedly continued with the extra marital affair for a
long period & later filed a divorce petition in 2019 on absolutely false
and baseless grounds.
4.
That upon the registration of FIR, the police carried out the
investigation & proceeded to file chargesheet, in October 2021 only against
the Appellant herein. A closure report was filed against the remaining 4
accused. The filing of charge sheet resulted in the Criminal Case No. CHI/1856/2021in
the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hisar (Haryana). The Appellant
herein moved before the High Court for seeking quashing of the charge sheet
/criminal proceedings quashed. The High Court vide its judgment & order dated 05.04.2022declined
to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
5. That the High Court made the following
observations: -
“I have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner at length and have gone through the record carefully. The main
thrust of the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the
complainant had never been interested in living in the matrimonial home and she
kept on pressurizing the petitioner for living separately from his family members.
In order to achieve her objective she kept on causing harassment to the
petitioner and his family members. However, a perusal of the allegations in the
FIR would show that the petitioner and the family members gave taunting to the
complainant for lowering down their image in the society. Demand of a car was
also made. Complainant was taunted for not having been incurred sufficient
expenditure on marriage by her parents. There are allegations of beating the complainant
by her husband and the other family members. It has been specifically alleged
that the petitioner is an alcoholic and has illicit relations with one xxxxx .
6. That the High Court relied upon Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the
law time State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC regarding exercising the jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C and as per the said parameter, according to high court
the F.I.R could not have been quashed.
7.
That the High Court while dismissing the quashing petition
preferred by the appellant had further relied upon a judgment passed by hon’ble
Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021
SCC Online SC 315 wherein it is held that quashing of FIR
is an exception rather than an ordinary rule and the High Court should exercise
the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sparingly with circumspection. The high
court has thus held that after taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances
of the present case, in the light of the law settled, the present case does not
fall in the category of cases for invoking the inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. The parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court mandate that
in a case where from the bare reading of the allegations in the FIR no
cognizable offence is made out or it has been lodged to wreak the vengeance
then the High Court may intervene. The veracity of the allegations leveled by
the complainant can be assessed only after a thorough investigation and
thereafter by the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence led before it.
SUPREME COURT
In the above backdrop, the appellant
was before Supreme Court.
Contentions of Appellant:
(i)
The Appellant and his family had filed a divorce
petition and also a domestic violence case against the complainant in 2019 and
2020 respectively. As a counter blast to the same, the FIR No. 95 of 2021 dated
09.04.2021 came to be lodged after a period of more than 11 months from the
date the First Informant left her matrimonial home and that too, only after the
service of summons to her in the domestic violence case. No plausible
explanation has been offered for such delay.
(ii)
The FIR was filed with an oblique motive &
by way of vengeance towards the Appellant. The complainant and Appellant were
married for over 12 years.
(iii)
The allegations in the FIR are too vague and
general in nature. There is no specific allegation/incident of harassment
levelled against the Appellant in the FIR.
Contentions of
respondent wife:
(i)
The Appellant and his family continuously
demanded for additional dowry after the marriage. They used to beat the complainant
and take away her entire salary.
(ii)
After filing of the divorce petition, the
Appellant stopped paying anything towards her maintenance and also disconnected
the basic facilities such as water connection etc., leaving her with no option
but to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parents house at Hisar.
(iii)
The Appellant had an affair with another woman.
Only with a view to save the marriage, she kept quiet and did not inform about
it to the others.
(iv)
The domestic violence case filed against the complainant
is absolutely frivolous and vexatious.
(v)
The Appellant failed to inform this Court that
he had withdrawn the divorce proceedings instituted against the complainant.
ANALYSIS OF SUPREME COURT
(i)
The Appellant and the Respondent No. 2/wife got married in October 2008.The couple lived
together for more than a decade and in the wedlock a child was born in March
2012.It was also noted that the Appellant filed a divorce petition in July 2019
on the ground of cruelty. The divorce petition was withdrawn as the Appellant
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 Appellant’s mother had to file
a domestic violence case against the First Informant/complainant in October
2020 under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005.
(ii)
The plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet papers indicate
that the allegations levelled by the First Informant are quite vague, general
and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. It is also pertinent
to note that in the FIR no specific date or time of the alleged
offence/offences has been disclosed. Even the police thought fit to drop the
proceedings against the other members of the Appellant’s family. Thus, the
Supreme Court was of the view that the FIR lodged by the Respondent No. 2 was
nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition & also the domestic
violence case.
(iii)
The Supreme Court has also noted that the Respondent No. 2/wife
had lodged the FIR on 09.04.2021, i.e., nearly 2 years after the filing of the
divorce petition by the Appellant and 6 months after the filing of the
domestic violence case by her Mother-in-law. Thus, the First Informant/complainant
remained silent for nearly 2 years after the divorce petition was filed. With
such an unexplained delay in filing the FIR, the Supreme Court had noted that the
same was filed only to harass the Appellant and his family members.
(iv) In para no. 20 and 21 in Achin Gupta (Supra), the Supreme
Court has observed as under:
“20. It is now well settled that
the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution,
only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the Section
itself. It is also well settled that Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the
inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Criminal
Procedure Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction
may be exercised, namely :
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code,
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and
(iii)
to otherwise secure the ends of justice.”
“21. The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively
reserved for the Police Officers, whose powers in that field are unfettered, so
long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offence is legitimately
exercised in strict compliance with the provisions under Chapter XII of the
Cr.P.C.. While exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the court
does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. As noted above, the
inherent jurisdiction under the Section, although wide, yet should be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified
by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be
exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial
justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. The authority of
the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse
that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has the power to prevent
such abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action
which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise
of the powers, the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds
that the initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court
or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice.
When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the
question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to
look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether
any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto”.
Significantly, the supreme Court has further
observed in the Achin Gupta (Supra) that
Once the investigation is
over and chargesheet is 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. It is further observed by the Supreme Court that
there is nothing in the wording of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which in any manner
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. More pertinently,
it is held that 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 materialized into a
chargesheet.
(v) The Supreme
Court had also relied upon judgment rendered by it reported as R.P. Kapur v.
State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866, while summarising some categories of cases where
inherent power can, and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: -
(i) where it
manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or
continuance e.g. want of sanction;
ii) where the allegations
in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and
accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the
allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or
the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
(vi)
In the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (Criminal Appeal No. 1277
of 2014, while granting anticipatory bail to accused under Section 498A of the
IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, paras 6 respectively are worth taking note of.
They are reproduced below: -
“6. There is phenomenal increase in
matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly
revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed
object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband
and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has
lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as
weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is
to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite
number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands,
their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. Crime in India 2012 Statistics
published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows
arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under
Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of
those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which
depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in
their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the
crimes committed under Penal Code, 1860. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes
committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes
excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A,
IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest
across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current
estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal”..
(vii)
The Supreme Court, in the case of State of A.P. v. Vangaveeti Nagaiah, reported in (2009) 12 SCC
466 : AIR 2009 SC 2646, interpreted clause (iii) referred to above, observing thus:
-
“6. In
dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction
between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which
is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal
evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not
ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable
or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained….”.
(viii) In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2010 Criminal Law
Journal 4303 (1), the Supreme Court has observed the following: -
“28. It is a matter of common knowledge
that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country.
All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial
cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a
large number of people of the society.”
(ix) The Supreme Court has thus
concluded in Achin Gupta (Supra)
by observing as under:
“33. The ultimate object of justice is to
find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out
the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of
implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times,
even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the
real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing
with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration
while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of
husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never
visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an
entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to
be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long
and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the
relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that
in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had
to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable
settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful”.
The observation of Supreme Court is apt, while quashing the proceedings/charge
sheet u/s 323,
406, 498A and 506 against the appellant herein.
------
Anil K Khaware
Founder & Senior Associate
Societylawandjustice.com
No comments:
Post a Comment