Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Digambar and Another – Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 5542 of 2024 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2122 of 2020]
Decided On : 20-12-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498-A, 312, 313 and 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 85, 88, 89 and 3(5)] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Cruelty and causing miscarriage – Common intention – Dismissal of quashing petition by High Court – Ingredients for offence to be made out under Section 498-A of IPC require that there has to be cruelty inflicted against victim which either drives her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health – No specific role or allegation is levelled on either of appellants and no specific incident of physical or mental cruelty has been mentioned – Mere omnibus statement has been made that physical and mental cruelty was afflicted because complainant could not provide a male child – There is not even a whisper in FIR about complainant conveying news of pregnancy to appellants or their son – It is unusual that when allegations under Sections 312 and 313 of IPC are levelled against appellants, such an important fact surrounding her pregnancy and its knowledge to appellants is not to be found in FIR – Facts when taken at face value, do not reveal any specific instance of cruelty committed by appellants – Complaint was lodged after notice of divorce was given by complainant – Proceedings were initiated with ulterior motive of pressurizing son of appellant herein to consent to divorce according to terms of complainant and proceedings were used as a weapon by complainant in personal discord between the couple – Continuance of criminal proceedings against appellants would result in abuse of process of law – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court quashed and set aside and criminal proceedings quashed and set aside. (Paras 18, 19, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34 and 38)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges final judgment and order dated 23rd January 2020 passed in Criminal Application 859 of 2019, vide which Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting aside FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 312, 313 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against husband of complainant and present appellants (Parents-in-law of complainant).
Findings of Court:
This was a fit case wherein High Court should have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The legal document pertains to a case where criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants, who are the parents-in-law of the complainant, were challenged and ultimately quashed by the court. The core issue revolves around allegations of cruelty and misconduct, including infliction of mental and physical cruelty, causing miscarriage, and administering poisonous food, leading to criminal charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
The court emphasized that the allegations made in the FIR were vague, omnibus, and lacked specific details or concrete evidence linking the appellants to the alleged acts. It was noted that there was no mention of the appellants' knowledge of the pregnancy or any direct involvement in the miscarriage, which undermines the credibility of the accusations under sections related to cruelty and causing miscarriage (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the timing of the FIR—filed after the divorce notice—suggested that the proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive, primarily to pressure the appellants and their son into accepting divorce terms. The court observed that the allegations appeared to be motivated by personal discord and revenge rather than genuine criminal intent (!) (!) .
The court also highlighted the importance of scrutinizing whether the allegations, when taken at face value, would constitute a prima facie case. It found that the allegations did not meet this standard, as they were vague, general, and unsupported by specific incidents or evidence. The absence of detailed, credible evidence and the timing of the FIR indicated a misuse of legal provisions, particularly provisions meant to protect women from cruelty, which should not be exploited for personal vendettas (!) (!) .
Based on these considerations, the court held that continuing with the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law. The inherent powers of the court should be exercised to prevent such misuse, and in this case, justified the quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the appellants (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the criminal proceedings, and set aside the impugned order of the High Court, emphasizing that allegations must be specific, credible, and supported by concrete evidence before criminal proceedings are sustained.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 23rd January 2020 passed in Criminal Application 859 of 2019, vide which the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 [“Cr.P.C.” hereinafter] for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report2 [“FIR” hereinafter] No. 339 of 2018 dated 6th November 2018 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Latur for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 312, 313 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 [“IPC” hereinafter] filed against the husband of the complainant-Madhav Suryawanshi and the present appellants-Digambar Suryawanshi (Appellant No. 1) and Kashibai Suryawanshi (Appellant No. 2) (Parents-in-law of the complainant)
3. Shorn of details, the facts leading up to the present appeal are as under:
3.1. As per the FIR, the complainant and Madhav Suryawanshi (Son of the appellants) were married on 26th March 2006. Two daughters were born out of the wedlock. After the birth of the second daughter in 2011, the complainant’s husband and the appellants demanded a son from her. They berated her and insulted her and inflicted physical and mental cruelty, stating that she was giving birth to only daughters. Due to the ill-treatment, she began residing separately from the month of February 2018. It was further alleged that the appellants used to instigate their son (Husband of the complainant) against the complainant. He would beat her citing the reason that she was not giving birth to a male child.
3.2. It is further alleged in the FIR that, on 28th November 2016, the appellants along with the complainant’s husband visited her in Latur. The appellants asked the complainant to eat a meal prepared by them, which she refused to consume initially. However, they coerced her to eat it despite her protests. On the next day, she had stomach pain in the morning, and she started bleeding. This led to her baby being aborted in her womb. On 5th December 2016, she visited the doctor along with her sisters and it was discovered that a piece of the foetus is still in her womb, and she was treated for the same. Based on these facts, alleging about the forced abortion and physical and mental cruelty, the complaint was made.
3.3. The appellants along with their son filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashing and setting aside of the FIR No. 339 of 2018 before the High Court.
3.4. During its pendency, the Family Court at Latur vide order dated 20th May 2019 granted a decree of Divorce by mutual consent and dissolved the marriage between the complainant and the son of the appellants.
3.5. The High Court, vide impugned judgment and final order dated 23rd January 2020 dismissed the application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 339 of 2018.
3.6. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal was filed.
Notice was issued by this Court vide order dated 2nd June 2020. During the pendency of the matter, the chargesheet came to be filed on 8th February 2021.
4. We have heard Shri Shirish K. Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1-State of Maharashtra and Smt. Prachiti Deshpande for Respondent No. 2- Complainant.
5. Shri Deshpande submits that the appellants before this Court have no active role to play. They have merely been roped into the complaint as they are the parents-in-law of the complainant.
6. It was further submitted that, if such a serious offence was committed by the appellants on 28th November 2016, it should have been mentioned in the notice of Divorce sent by the complainant on 15th May 2018 as it is alleged in the FIR, that the son of the appellants had also allegedly played a role in that incident. There is not even a whisper of this incident in this notice. The complaint was filed a
Cruelty – Criminal proceedings initiated with ulterior motive cannot be allowed to continue.
Vague allegations in a domestic abuse case do not meet the legal threshold for prosecuting relatives under IPC Section 498A, requiring specific instances of cruelty.
Allegations under Section 498-A IPC must be specific; omnibus claims lack legal sufficiency to support prosecution.
Filing an FIR under Section 498-A IPC can be quashed if the allegations are vague and do not demonstrate acts of cruelty as defined by law, particularly when linked to ongoing matrimonial disputes.
(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....
(1) Cruelty – Term “cruelty” cannot be established without specific instances – Mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out specifics against such persons would not be sufficient to c....
Section 498A of IPC (Section 85 of BNS) is often being misused and Court must guard against it – Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead t....
Courts must scrutinize vague, omnibus 498-A allegations in matrimonial disputes for misuse; quash FIR if unrefuted material shows no prima facie cruelty, mutual discord, and vendetta motive, applying....
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.
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
