Back
2024 Supreme(All) 2056
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Pankaj - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and another - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application No. 3707 of 2020
Decided on : 30-07-2024
For the Appellant : Abhinav Gaur, Vibhu Rai, Mohd. Rashid Siddiqui and Anoop Trivedi
For the Respondent: Avijit Saxena, G.A. and Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi
In matrimonial disputes, allegations must be substantiated; mere general claims do not warrant criminal proceedings under IPC Section 498A.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 - Dowry harassment and related offences - Allegations made in FIR were found to be general and omnibus, with substantial parts deemed false during investigation - Charge-sheet filed only against three named accused, while others were exonerated - Court emphasized that mere allegations in matrimonial disputes should not lead to automatic application of Section 498A. (Paras 2, 3, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Inherent powers of High Court - Court must scrutinize FIRs for frivolous or vexatious claims, especially in matrimonial disputes, to prevent misuse of legal provisions. (Paras 6, 35)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, husband of the complainant, faced allegations of dowry harassment and related offences, which were found to be largely false during investigation. The FIR was lodged after a marriage that took place in 2016, with the complainant making sweeping allegations against the applicant and his family.
Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the applicant's argument that the allegations were similar to those against exonerated co-accused, leading to the quashing of the charge-sheet and further proceedings against the applicant.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the allegations made in the FIR and the distinction between the applicant and the exonerated co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that allegations in matrimonial disputes must be scrutinized carefully, and the mere existence of allegations does not justify the continuation of criminal proceedings if they are found to be false.
Result: Application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.-Heard Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2.
2. The applicant before this Court is husband of opposite party No. 2 i.e. complainant. She has lodged an FIR against applicant (her husband) and five co-accused being his family members that they have committed offence under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.-Kwarsi, District-Aligarh. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 16.8.2018 only against three named accused i.e. applicant, his father and his mother, on which cognizance was taken on 14.1.2019 and date of summoning is not on record. Initially this Court has referred matter for mediation by an order dated 4.2.2020, however, according to mediation report dated 21.12.2021, parties were unable to arrive to any agreement.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that marriage between applicant and complainant was solemnized on 22.4.2016 and an FIR was lodged on 25.6.2018 making general and omnibus allegations, not only against applicant but also against his entire close family members that they have committed offence of subjecting her to cruelty, caused hurt, criminal intimidation and demand of dowry. During investigation, substantial part of statements of complainant and witnesses, recorded during investigation, was found to be false.
4. Learned counsel has further submitted that there was a criminal proceeding on behalf of applicant side also. The mother of applicant has lodged an FIR against present applicant and complainant i.e. his wife. Divorce proceeding was also initiated at instance of applicant which was allowed by an ex-parte order dated 3.4.2021.
5. Learned counsel referred statement of the complainant recorded during investigation and for reference the same is reproduced hereinafter :
6. Learned counsel for applicant has placed heavy reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another, 2024 INSC 369 and relevant paragraph thereof is mentioned hereinafter :
''31. We are of the view that the category 7 referred to above should be taken into consideration and applied in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. If the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of her husband and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the FIR and the charge-sheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence the Court with a view to doing substantial justice should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter. If the submission canvassed by the counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 and the State is to be accepted mechanically then in our opinion the very conferment of the inherent power by the Cr.P.C. upon the High Court would be rendered otiose. We are saying so for the simple reason that if the wife on account of matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband and his family members then the first thing, she would ensure is to see that proper allegations are levelled in the First Information Report. Many times the services of professionals are availed for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However, that does not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are allegations in the First Information Report and the charge-sheet papers disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. If the allegations alone as levelled, more particularly in the case like the one on hand, are to be looked into or considered then why the investigating agency thought fit to file a closure report against the other co-accused? There is no answer to this at the end of the learned counsel appearing for the State. We say so, because allegations
