The Supreme Court, while quashing an FIR under Section 498A of IPC, observed that in recent times, greater disaffection surrounding the institution of marriage has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.
A Division Bench of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari on Tuesday said that “incorporation of Section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention”.
The Bench allowed the appeal against the judgement dated November 13, 2019 passed by the High Court of Patna, challenging the FIR dated April 1, 2019, implicating the appellants for offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The High Court vide order dismissed the same.
The Complainant got married to Md Ikram on September 18, 2017. The appellants herein are the in-laws of Complainant. On December 11, 2017, the complainant initially instituted a criminal complaint against her husband and the appellants before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea alleging demand for dowry and harassment.
Thereafter, when the file was put up before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court, Purnea, for passing order at the stage of issuance of summon, the Magistrate concluded that upon perusal of material evidence, no prima-facie case was made against the in-laws and that the allegations levelled against them were not specific in nature. The said court, however, took cognisance for the offence under Section 498A, 323 IPC against husband Md. Ikram, and issued summons. This dispute was eventually resolved and the Complainant came back to the matrimonial home.
Subsequently, on 01.04.19, Complainant, gave another written complaint for registration of FIR under sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 IPC against her husband Md. Ikram and the appellants . The complaint inter-alia alleged that all the accused were pressurizing the Complainant to purchase a car as dowry, and threatened to forcibly terminate her pregnancy if the demands were not met.
Aggrieved, the Husband and appellant herein filed a criminal writ petition before the Patna High Court, for quashing of the said FIR dated 01.04.19, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment. The High Court observed that the averments made in the FIR prima-facie disclosed commission of an offence and therefore the matter was required to be investigated by the police. The Appellants herein, being the niece , Mother in-law , Sister in-law , and brother in law have thereby approached the High court by way of the Special Leave Petition.
While Considering the appeal the Apex Court held that at numerous instances Top Court has expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the earlier judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, the court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.
Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, the Bench noted that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation where one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence.
“The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution”, the Bench observed.
Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR , the Court noted that the State of Bihar, contended that the present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the Principal Judge Purnea, to not harass the Respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 01.04.19, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17.
The Court further held that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.
“Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged”, the Bench said while allowing the appeal.