Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Achin Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024, Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4912 of 2022
Decided On : 03-05-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323, 406, 498A and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cruelty, hurt, criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation – Appellant and his family members are alleged to have demanded dowry and thereby caused mental and physical trauma to the First Informant – Allegations levelled by First Informant are quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct – In FIR no specific date or time of alleged offence/offences has been disclosed – Even police thought fit to drop proceedings against other members of Appellant’s family – FIR lodged by Respondent was nothing but a counterblast to divorce petition and also domestic violence case – If a person is made to face criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of process of court. (Paras 4, 18 and 25)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323, 406, 498A and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Dowry offence – There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment by husband and his family members towards wife – Degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary – However, Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment – Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by wife at instigation of her parents or relatives or friends – In all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of IPC cannot be applied mechanically – No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of IPC – Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to 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 – This is a fit case wherein, High Court should have exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court hereby set aside and criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 32, 36, 41 and 42)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – Power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only where such exercise is justified by tests laid down in the Section itself – Section 482 of Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on High Court but only saves inherent power, which Court possessed before enactment of Criminal Procedure Code – Investigation of an offence is field exclusively reserved for Police Officers, whose powers in that field are unfettered, so long as power to investigate into cognizable offence is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with provisions under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. – While exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision – Once investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, FIR pales into insignificance – Court owes a duty to look into all materials collected by investigating agency in form of charge-sheet – It would be a travesty of justice to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has materialized into a charge-sheet. (Paras 20, 21 and 22)
(D) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 85 and 86 – Matrimonial cruelty – Section 86 is nothing but verbatim reproduction of Section 498A of IPC – Only difference is that Explanation to Section 498A of IPC, is now by way of a separate provision, i.e. Section 86 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Legislature requested to look into the issue taking into consideration pragmatic realities and consider making necessary changes in Sections 85 and 86 respectively of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, before both new provisions come into force. (Paras 39 and 40)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from judgment and order passed by High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 05.04.2022 in Criminal Main filed by Appellant herein (sole accused in charge-sheet) by which High Court rejected the petition and thereby declined to quash charge-sheet for offences punishable under Section 323, 406, 498A and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 arising from First Information Report lodged by wife of Appellant.
Findings of Court:
We direct Registry to send one copy each of this judgment to Union Law Secretary and Union Home Secretary, to Government of India who may place it before Minister for Law and Justice as well as Minister for Home.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The legislative provisions related to matrimonial cruelty, specifically Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are essentially identical to the earlier Section 498A of the IPC, with the only difference being the format of the explanation (!) (!) . The legislature has been advised to review these provisions carefully and consider necessary amendments before they come into force, taking into account practical realities (!) (!) .
The law emphasizes that allegations of matrimonial cruelty and harassment should be scrutinized with caution. Not all complaints or allegations necessarily constitute criminal conduct, especially when they are vague, general, or lack specific instances of misconduct (!) (!) .
The exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be done sparingly, carefully, and only when justified by specific tests. It is not intended to be used as a tool to quash proceedings solely based on the suspicion of malicious intent or oblique motives, such as revenge or false accusations (!) (!) (!) .
The investigation process is exclusively reserved for police authorities, and courts should not interfere prematurely. Once a charge-sheet is filed, the court's role is to assess the materials objectively, and proceedings should not be quashed unless it is clearly evident that they are an abuse of process or lack legal basis (!) (!) (!) .
Complaints under matrimonial laws, especially those under Section 498A, are often susceptible to misuse, leading to unnecessary harassment and social unrest. The law recognizes that exaggerated or false allegations are common and that such cases should be approached with caution to avoid undue hardship (!) (!) (!) .
The courts are urged to avoid encouraging matrimonial disputes through criminal litigation, as prolonged trials can cause irreparable social and personal damage. Instead, amicable resolution and reconciliation are preferable where possible (!) (!) .
The importance of maintaining social harmony and protecting individual rights is stressed, with a call for legislative reforms to address the overreach and misuse of criminal provisions related to matrimonial disputes (!) (!) .
The courts should scrutinize allegations thoroughly and should not accept sweeping or unsubstantiated claims at face value. They must ensure that there is a prima facie case before proceeding with criminal charges, and should exercise caution to prevent abuse of the judicial process (!) (!) (!) .
The overarching principle is that criminal proceedings should serve the ends of justice and not become instruments of harassment, especially in sensitive matrimonial cases. The courts have a duty to prevent misuse and to promote fair and just resolution of disputes (!) (!) .
The judgment underscores the need for reform in the law to better balance the protection of women against cruelty and harassment with safeguarding individuals from false or frivolous accusations, emphasizing the importance of pragmatic and social considerations in legal processes (!) (!) .
These points collectively highlight the cautious approach required in matrimonial criminal cases, the importance of scrutinizing allegations thoroughly, and the need for legislative review to prevent misuse of law.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 05.04.2022 in the Criminal Main No. 14198-2022 (CRM-M-14198-2022) filed by the Appellant herein (sole accused in the charge-sheet) by which the High Court rejected the petition and thereby declined to quash the charge-sheet dated 13.10.2021 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 Respondent No. 2 (wife of the Appellant) at the Urban Estate Hisar Police Station, District Hisar.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The FIR dated 09.04.2021 reads thus:
2. That after the marriage, the first informant and Accused No. 1 lived as husband and wife at B-39, Phase-2, Vikas Nagar, Hastsaal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi 110059 and the first informant performed all the duties of a wife and out of the said wedlock a boy, namely, Advay aged 8 years was born, who is presently residing with Accused No. 1.
3. That after few days of the marriage, when the first informant went to her matrimonial house at that time the Accused persons taunted that your family has lowered down our image in the society and before relatives by giving less dowry and said to the first informant that at least your family should have given a big car in the dowry because Accused No. 1 is doing a good job and almost earns Rs. 1,50,000/- monthly and for him, we were getting proposal from rich families who would have spent cores of rupees on the marriage. On this the first informant said that her family had already given 5 lakhs rupees in cash for purchasing the car and have already spent more than their capability and now they cannot fulfil your demand for more dowry whereupon accused persons threatened the first informant saying that if you want to live with us then you have to get our above demand for the dowry fulfilled by your parents otherwise you will not be allowed to live in this house.
4. That whenever the first informant cooked food in the matrimonial home, the accused persons always used to point out unnecessary defects in the food and taunted the first informant that she does not know cooking. To harass and upset the first informant, the accused persons deliberately asked her to make various dishes and when the first informant showed her inability, the accused persons used to abuse and beat her.
5. That Accused No. 3 is the mother-in-law of the first informant, who is a teacher and she used to leave the house at 7:00 hrs in the morning for the school and the first informant used to do all household works and when her mother-in-law returned from the school, she deliberately used to point out defects in her work and used to taunt the first informant that your family should have given gold bangles to me and now, you would have to bring gold bangles from your family and when the first informant tell her that her family had already spent a lot over her marriage, then she used to abuse and give beatings to the first informant.
6.
(1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 85 and 86 – Matrimonial cruelty – Section 86 is nothing but verbatim reproduction of Section 498A of IPC – Legislature requested to look into the issue ta....
Allegations under Section 498A must meet specific legal thresholds; trivial irritations do not constitute cruelty, and misuse of legal provisions in matrimonial disputes is subject to quashing.
The court emphasized that vague and unsupported allegations in matrimonial disputes, particularly under Section 498A IPC, warrant careful scrutiny and may lead to quashing of FIRs to prevent abuse of....
The court established that allegations of cruelty and dowry demands must be substantiated by evidence; otherwise, proceedings may be quashed to prevent abuse of the legal process.
General and omnibus allegations of cruelty and dowry demands, without specific instances or details, do not constitute offenses under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC, and the court has the inherent ....
General and omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes do not justify criminal prosecution against relatives of the husband without specific evidence.
Allegations under Section 498-A IPC must be specific; omnibus claims lack legal sufficiency to support prosecution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
