Section 498 A of IPC, USE, MISUSE AND ABUSE:
Parameter defined
In
a recent judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court captioned as Dara
Lakshmi Narayana & Ors Vs State of Telengana & Ors 2024 INSC
953 ( Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP ( Criminal) No. 16239/ 2024, the broad
contour of the offence u/s 498 A of IPC and upon registration of F.I.R the
aspect of quashing has been dealt with. To elucidate it further, the appellant
before the Supreme Court were the husband and other relatives, who, being
aggrieved with the judgment of the High Court of the State of Telengana, who
refused to quash the proceedings in FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022
registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda against the appellant Nos.1
to 6 herein under Sections 498A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”, for short) and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 (“Dowry Act”, for short).
Before
going further, it is necessary to point out that Section 498 A of Indian Penal
Code is replaced by Section 85 and 86 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS). The
Section 85 and 86 contains the offence u/s 498 A of IPC. Section 85 of BNS
covers the act of husband or his relatives subjecting a woman to cruelty,
whereas section 86 of BNS provides for detailed definition of cruelty, albeit
similar to the IPC, but now, it is consolidated. The core provisions of Section
498-A IPC remained intact. In the present case, however, the offence relates to
the provisions of IPC and therefore provisions of IPC shall be attracted.
BRIEF
FACTS
Gravamen of complaint
(i)
The marriage of appellant No.1 husband
and respondent No.2 wife was solemnised on 08.03.2015 as per Hindu rites and
rituals at Chennakesava Swamy Temple, Marakapuram, Andhra Pradesh. The other
appellants were father-in-law, mother-in-law respectively of respondent No.2
and appellant Nos.4 to 6 were the sisters-in-law of respondent No.2.
(ii)
The respondent No.2(wife) had lodged a
complaint against the appellant Nos.1 to 6 and accused No.7 who is her
brother-in-law which was registered as FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 for the
offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Act registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda.
(iii)
As per the said FIR, it was alleged that
at the time of her marriage, the father of respondent No.2 gave net cash of
Rs.10 lakhs, 10 tolas of gold, and other household articles as dowry and also
spent Rs. 5 lakhs towards marriage expenses.
(iv)
After
the marriage, the couple started residing at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where
appellant No.1 was working in Southern Railways. Out of their wedlock,
respondent No.2 and appellant No.1 have 2 minor children.
(v) The first child was born in the year 2016
and the second child was born in the year 2017. After marriage, appellant No.1 started
harassing her both physically and mentally for want of additional dowry.
(vi) The appellant No.1 also used to abuse
respondent No.1 in filthy language and used to suspect her character. He also used
to come home inebriated and harassed her by having an illegal affair with another
woman.
(vii) In so far as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned,
respondent No.2 alleged that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for
demanding more dowry her.
Being
aggrieved by the said criminal proceedings pending against them, the appellants
and accused No.7 approached the High Court by filing Criminal Petition No.1479
of 2022 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (“CrPC”) seeking
quashing of the FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 registered with Neredmet
Police Station, Rachakonda. The Telengana High Court vide order dated
16.02.2024, refused to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants
and accused No.7 in FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 and disposed of the
Criminal Petition No.1479 of 2022 directing the Investigation Officer to follow
the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of CrPC and also the guidelines
issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273.
The
High Court further granted protection by directing the Investigation Officer
not to arrest to appellants until the chargesheet is filed. The High Court
noted that there are matrimonial disputes between appellant No.1 and respondent
No.2 and that in matrimonial disputes, custodial interrogation of the accused
is not required. Being aggrieved by the High Court’s refusal to quash the
criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022, the
appellants herein have preferred the instant appeal before the hon’ble Supreme
Court.
Subsequent
to the impugned order dated 16.02.2022, the police have filed a chargesheet
dated 03.06.2022 before the Court of 1st Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri,
Cyberabad vide C.C. No.1544 of 2022 against the appellant Nos.1 to 6 under
Section 498 A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act. However, the
charges were dropped against accused No.7 (respondent No.2’s brother-in-law).
The criminal case against the appellants herein is pending trial in the Court
of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Malkajgiri.
Contentions
of Appellants before Supreme Court
(i)
The appellants never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2. In fact, she used
to leave the matrimonial house uninformed and on one such occasion, when she
left the matrimonial house, on 03.10.2021, appellant No.1 made a police complaint
on 05.10.2021. When the police found her whereabouts, she was allegedly living
with someone.
(ii)
The respondent No.2 after being counselled, returned to her matrimonial house.
(iii)
The respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting to close the
complaint made by appellant No.1 wherein she admitted that she had left her
matrimonial house after quarrelling with appellant No.1 because of her talk
with a person, she was talking over the phone for the past ten days continuously.
(iv) She also stated that she would not repeat such acts.
(iv)
The respondent No.2 again left the matrimonial house leaving appellant No.1 and
children behind. Being optionless, the appellant no.1 issued a legal notice
dated 13.12.2021 to respondent No.2 seeking divorce by mutual consent.
(v)
As a counterblast, the present FIR has been lodged by respondent No.2. on
01.02.2022.
(vi)
Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, no specific allegation is made
against them in the FIR. Moreover, the appellant Nos.2 to 6 did not live in the
matrimonial house of the couple and have been unnecessarily dragged into this
case.
It
was thus submitted that the present case is a fit case for quashing the FIR and
accordingly prayed that the Supreme Court
may set-aside the impugned order dated 16.02.2022 and quash the criminal
proceedings pending against the appellants herein arising out of FIR No. 82 of 2022
dated 01.02.2022.
The
respondent no.2 opted not to be present in the proceedings. The submissions of
the state was that on a perusal of the FIR, it would reveal that a prima facie
case has been made out against the appellants. It was submitted that, as
per the FIR, respondent No.2 was harassed both physically and mentally for want
of additional dowry and that appellant No.1 used to come home in a drunken
state and used to have an illicit affair with another woman. The father of
respondent No.2 was examined as LW3 who stated in the examination that at the
time of marriage, he gave Rs.10 lakhs and 10 tolas of gold as dowry. It was
further submitted that after the marriage, appellant No.1 used to harass and
abuse respondent No.2 and appellant Nos.2 to 6 used to provoke and instigate
appellant No.1. Hence, the High Court, vide impugned order, was justified in
declining to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants
herein arising out of FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 and prayed for the
dismissal of the present appeal as well.
DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS
The
allegations in the FIR are under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Act. The Section 498A of the IPC deals with offences committed by
the husband or relatives of the husband subjecting cruelty towards the wife.
The said provision reads as under:
“498A.
Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—
Whoever,
being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman
to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—
For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is
of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where
such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to
meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account
of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
Further, Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Act speaks about the penalty for giving or taking or demanding a dowry.
“3.
Penalty for giving or taking dowry.—
(1) If any person, after the
commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of
dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen
thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more.
Provided that the Court may, for
adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence
of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1)
shall apply to, or in relation to,—
(a) presents which are given at
the time of a marriage to the bride without any demand having been made in that
behalf:
Provided that such presents are
entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;
(b) presents which are given at
the time of a marriage to the bridegroom without any demand having been made in
that behalf:
Provided that such presents are
entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act:
Provided further that where such
presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride,
such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive
having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf,
such presents are given.
4. Penalty for demanding dowry.—If any person demands, directly
or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or
bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two
years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:
Provided that the Court may, for
adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence
of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.”
LAW
(1)
In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC, the Supreme Court had formulated the parameters
under which the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC could be exercised. A few
of the relevant parameters in the present context may be set out as under:
In
the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the
Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court
in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, in the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice, though, according to the Supreme Court, it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines
or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases,
wherein, such power should be exercised.
(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.
x x x
(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.”
The
issue for consideration before the Supreme Court, was whether, given the facts
and circumstances of the case and after examining the FIR, the High Court was
correct in refusing to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings against the
appellants arising out of FIR No. 82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 under Section
498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act. According to the Supreme
Court, a bare perusal of the FIR shall show that the allegations made by respondent
No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed
her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has
not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of
harassment. There were no specifics of time, date, place or manner in which the
alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise
allegations. What is borne from the record that the respondent No.2 on 03.10.2021
left the matrimonial home leading appellant No.1 to file a police complaint on
05.10.2021. When the police officials traced her, respondent No.2 addressed a
letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub
Division requesting to close the complaint made by appellant No.1. In the said
letter, respondent No.2 admitted that she left her matrimonial house after
quarrelling with appellant No.1 as she was talking to another person over the phone for the past ten days continuously.
She further admitted that appellant No.1 was taking good care of her. She also
stated that she will not engage in such actions in future. Despite that, in
2021 itself, respondent No.2 once again left the matrimonial house leaving
appellant No.1 and also her minor children.
As
the appellant no.1 lost the hope in the marriage, thus, issued a legal notice
to respondent No.2 seeking divorce by mutual consent on 13.12.2021. Instead of
responding to the said legal notice issued by appellant No.1, respondent No.2
lodged the present FIR 82 of 2022 on 01.02.2022 registered with Neredmet Police
Station, Rachakonda under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Act.
In
view of above and of the timing and context of the FIR, coupled with the fact
that respondent No.2 had left the matrimonial house on 03.10.2021 after
quarrelling with appellant No.1 with respect to her interactions with a third
person in their marriage. Later she came back to her matrimonial house assuring
to have a cordial relationship with appellant No.1. However, she again left the
matrimonial house. When appellant No.1 issued a legal notice seeking divorce on
13.12.2021, the present FIR came to be lodged on 01.02.2022 by respondent No.2.
Thus, according to Supreme Court, the FIR filed by respondent No. 2 is not a genuine
complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with
appellant No. 1 and his family members.
Though,
on behalf of the State, it was contended that a prima facie case was
made out against the appellants for harassing respondent No.2 and demanding
dowry from her. However, the Supreme Court observed that the allegations made
by respondent No.2 in the FIR seem to be motivated by a desire for retribution
rather than a legitimate grievance. Further, the allegations attributed against
the appellants herein are vague and omnibus. The respondent No.2 has not
contested the present case either before the High Court or before the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that respondent No. 2 has not only deserted
appellant No. 1 but has also abandoned her two children as well, who are now in
the care and custody of appellant No.1. It also appears that the respondent
no.2 has shown no inclination to re-establish any relationship with her
children.
As
regards the appellant Nos.2 to 6, it was observed that they have no connection
to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any
rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and
specific allegations have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating
that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. It is also
an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1
and respondent No.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together
at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru, and
Guntur respectively.
It is therefore held in
Dara Lakshmi Narayana (Supra) as under:
25. 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. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial
experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the
husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord.
Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.
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 the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members
of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have
not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2
herein. Hence, they 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”.
On
the facts, it is further observed in the above case that:
26. In fact, in the instant case,
the first appellant and his wife i.e. the second respondent herein resided at
Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where he was working in Southern Railways. They were
married in the year 2015 and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the second
respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore, it cannot be believed that
there was any harassment for dowry during the said period or that there was any
matrimonial discord. Further, the second respondent in response to the missing
complaint filed by the first appellant herein on 05.10.2021 addressed a letter
dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub
Division requesting for closure of the said complaint as she had stated that
she had left the matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a quarrel with the
appellant No.1 because of one person with whom the second respondent was in
contact over telephone for a period of ten days. She had also admitted that she
would not repeat such acts in future. In the above conspectus of facts, we find
that the allegations of the second respondent against the appellants herein are
too far-fetched and are not believable.
The
Supreme Court has further noted that there were also allegations against
respondent No.2 and matrimonial disputes are pending between the parties. It
was further observed that the High Court came to the conclusion that custodial
interrogation of the appellants was not necessary and protected the personal
liberty of the appellants directing the Investigation Officer not to arrest the
appellants till the completion of the investigation and filing of the
charge-sheet. Though, despite the said findings and observations, the High
Court ultimately refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the
appellants.
The
Supreme Court in para no. 28 in Dara Lakshmi Narayana
(Supra) has deliberated on the aspect
and raised concern in the following terms:
28. The inclusion of Section 498A
of the IPC 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 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal
vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and
generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will
lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm-
twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to
invoke Section 498A of the IPC 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
Supreme Court has further observed that it cannot be stated even for a moment
that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated
under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from
making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. Ther above
observation was made in the context, however, one cannot be oblivious to the
fact of misuse of the provision and hence, should not encourage a case like as
in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition, for dissolution of
marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein,
a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. No doubt, the
insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman
who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home, primarily due to an
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry.
However, sometimes it is misused, as in the present case.
The
reference was also made by the Supreme Court to the following precedents:
In
G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows:
“12. There has been an outburst
of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the
main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and
live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which
elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could
have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their
being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons
which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so
that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably
by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes
years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young”
days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.”
Yet
again, the Supreme Court has also relied on the Preeti Gupta vs. State of
Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667, wherein it is held that the
courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing
with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband’s close
relatives 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 complainant are required to be
scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
Therefore,
after taking note of the above in Dara Lakshmi Narayana (Supra) the
impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior
motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his
family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, according to the
Supreme Court, the present case falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters
highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the
present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section
482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by
continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.
The
appeal was thus allowed and the impugned order was set aside. The FIR No.82 of
2022 dated 01.02.2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda under
Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act against appellant
Nos.1 to 6, charge-sheet dated 03.06.2022 filed in the Court of 1st
Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad and the trial pending in the
Court of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate, Malkajgiri against the appellants herein were accordingly quashed.
-----
Anil K Khaware
Founder & Senior Associate
Societylawandjustice.com
No comments:
Post a Comment