The central legal point established in the judgment is that the matter of cruelty and harassment under Section 498A IPC should be decided on evidence during trial, and the scope of power under section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash criminal proceedings is limited to rare cases and great circumspection.

AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Shri Sameer Jain, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

2. The applicants Jai Sur and three others, through this application moved under Section 482 Cr. P.C., 1973 have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 482/2007 (Sujata Sur v. Jai Sur and other), under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C., pending in the court of J.M.III, Varanasi and further prayed to stay the proceedings in the aforesaid case.

3. The brief facts which are requisite to be stated for the adjudication of the application are that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 was moved with the allegation that marriage of the opposite party no. 2 Sujata Sur was solemmized with application no. 1 Jai Sur on 22.11.2004. She went to her sasural and remained there for two years. After four or five months of the marriage, her husband and in-laws used to torture her by raising demand of motorcycle. They also tried to set her ablaze and on non-fulfilment of the demand, she was ousted from the house on 22.11.2006. The application was treated as complaint and after recording the statement under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 and on being heard, the Magistrate summoned the accused-applicants to face trial under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C.

4. Feeling aggrieved, applicants came up before this court in this application.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that on 23.5.2007, learned Magistrate sent the matter to Dowry Prohibition Officer for enquiry. After concluding the enquiry, Dowry Prohibition Officer submitted its final report dated 29.6.2007 with the fact that the matter does relate to the demand of dowry even then Magistrate issued the summoning order without considering the enquiry report. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is an obstinate lady who failed to perform her matrimonial duties. She remained in her matrimonial home only for about 56 months. The applicant no. 1 tried his best to fetch her back but all its efforts were in vain. Therefore, he filed the divorce petition before the Family Court, Varanasi being Divorce Petition No. 584 of 2005 which is still pending. It is also submitted that the applicants no. 3 and 4 are nanad and nandoi of opposite party no. 2 and no specific role has been assigned to them. No offence is made out against the applicants.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants relied on Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and another, AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3869, in which it has been held that-

"Section 498A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the women to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement. This Court had earlier observed that a serious review of the provision was warranted. The matter also appears to have been considered by the Law Commission, the Malimath Committee, the Committee on Petitions