Supreme Court: In an appeal filed by the in laws (appellants) of the wife seeking quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings for the offence of cruelty under Section 498A, the full bench of Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar, and SVN Bhatti JJ., while quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings against the appellants, opined that the wife’s allegations against the appellants are wholly insufficient and, prima facie, do not make out a case against them. Further, they are so far-fetched and improbable that no prudent person can conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against them. Thus, it held that this was a fit case for the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC and to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings.
Background:
The husband and wife married in 2007. After their marriage, the wife parted ways and started residing with her parents. At that time, the mother-in-law had submitted representation to Police Station, apprehending that the wife may make allegations against them about harassing her for dowry. Prior to the filing of the divorce petition by the husband on 08-05-2013, the wife made a written complaint on 05-02-2013 in Police Station, levelling several allegations against her husband and her in-laws. In consequence, an FIR was registered against all four of them under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Analysis:
While rejecting the contention that the appellants quash petition against the FIR was liable to be dismissed as the charge sheet was submitted before the Court , and reiterated that the High Court would continue to have the power to entertain and act upon a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR even when a chargesheet is filed by the police during the pendency of such petition.
After referring to various precedents, the Court took note of certain glaring inconsistencies and discrepancies. Though the wife had earlier alleged that her mother-in-law, and her brother-in-law, had taken away all her jewellery after her marriage on the pretext of safekeeping, she specifically stated in her deposition before the Family Court, that her entire stridhan jewellery was with her husband and despite of repeated demands, he was not returning it to her. Further, during her cross-examination, she admitted that she had made a complaint to the High Court against her brother-in-law. The complaint was styled as an anonymous one, but the wife voluntarily owned up to being its author. This aspect bears out her animosity against her in-laws and more particularly, her brother-in-law.
The Court noted that the wife parted ways with her matrimonial home and her in-laws in 2009, be it voluntarily or otherwise, but she did not choose to make a complaint against them in relation to dowry harassment till the year 2013. Surprisingly, FIR dated 09-02-2013 records that the occurrence of the offence was from 02-07-2007 to 05-02-2013, but no allegations were made by the wife against the in-laws after she left her matrimonial home in 2009. Significantly, the couple got married on 02-07-2007 and went to Mumbai on 08-07-2007. Her interaction with her in-laws thereafter seems to have been only during festivals and is stated to be about 3 or 4 times. Further, the wife made a general allegation against her brother-in-law, that he also tortured her mentally and physically for dowry. No specific instance was cited by her in that regard or as to how he subjected her to such harassment from Delhi. Similarly, the other brother-in-law became a judicial officer 6 or 7 months after her marriage and seems to have had no opportunity to be with the couple at Mumbai. His exposure to her was only when she came to visit her in-laws during festivals.
The Court was surprised that the wife alleged that at the time of her brother-in-law’s own marriage, he demanded that her parents should provide him with a car and 2 lakhs in cash. The Court said to commit such an illegality, from his sister-in-law at the time of his own marriage is rather incongruous and difficult to comprehend. Further, the fact that wife confessed making a vicious complaint against her brother-in-law to the Madhya Pradesh High Court clearly shows that her motives were not clean insofar as her brother-in-law is concerned, and she clearly wanted to wreak vengeance against her in-laws. The allegation levelled by the wife against her mother-in-law, regarding how she taunted her when she wore a maxi is wholly insufficient to constitute cruelty in terms of Section 498-A IPC.
The Court opined that the wife’s allegations against the appellants are wholly insufficient and, prima facie, do not make out a case against them. Further, they are so far-fetched and improbable that no prudent person can conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against them.
After taking note of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Court had set out broad categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised, said that the instant case falls squarely in categories , where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, and where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
As per the Court permitting the criminal process to go on against the appellants in such a situation would, therefore, result in clear and patent injustice. Further, it held that this was a fit case for the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC and to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings.
[Abhishek v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, decided on 31-08-2023]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Sanjay Kumar
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
This woman should be punished and a defamation case should be slapped on her for causing harassment to her in-laws for such long period of time.
Can the honorable Courts not take any action against these misusers and fraudsters? Who will now be accountable for the losses suffered by the defendants. Unless there is a follow up punishment for filing false cases to gain benefit personally, this trend of getting away scot free by harrassing the defendants will continue to rise. Let the complainant also learn the real price of loss of dignity and time, money and efforts. It badly affects the professionals in their future endeavours to do better in lives as they fail in all the background checks when changing for a better job. I can give a whole list of other life shattering losses.