Patna High Court: The present revision was directed against an order dated 30-5-2018, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Courts, 1st, Nalanda at Biharsharif (‘Additional Sessions Judge’), whereby it upheld the order dated 12-3-2008, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif (‘Chief Judicial Magistrate’), convicting and sentencing petitioners to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and rigorous imprisonment of six months with fine of Rs 1,000 each for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Bibek Chaudhari, J.*, opined that abusing a person saying ‘bhoot’ and ‘pisach’ itself was not an act of cruelty and that in matrimonial relation, especially in failed matrimonial relations there were incidents where both husband and wife abused each other saying filthy language. However, all such accusations do not come within the veil of “cruelty”. The Court allowed the present revision and thus the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge were quashed and set aside.
Background
Respondent 2 filed complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada against petitioners and their family members, alleging that on 1-3-1993, his daughter married Petitioner 2 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and after marriage, she went to her matrimonial home, where she was subjected to physical and mental torture for one Maruti car. Respondent 2’s daughter expressed her inability to provide a Maruti Car, but she was brutally assaulted by them. A Panchayat was held where her matrimonial family agreed to keep her with full dignity and honour. But later, they did not follow the decision of the Panchayat. The Respondent 2’s daughter sent letters to him, disclosing that if the demands were not fulfilled, they would kill her. Respondent 2 made allegations, implicating petitioners of dowry related harassment and cruelty towards his daughter.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that though Respondent 2’s daughter stated that she informed the matter about torture of petitioners to her father by series of letter, not a single letter was produced by Respondent 2 during the case’s trial.
The Court did not accept Respondent 2’s submission that abusing a person saying ‘bhoot’ and ‘pisach’ itself was an act of cruelty and opined that in matrimonial relation, especially in failed matrimonial relations there were incidents where both husband and wife abused each other saying filthy language. However, all such accusations do not come within the veil of “cruelty”.
The Court observed that even though it was submitted that petitioners demanded a Maruti car and the parties went on abusing each other on various issues before lodging of the complaint under Section 498-A of the IPC but there was no document prior to the lodging of the complaint to show that petitioners personally demanded a Maruti Car and on non-fulfillment of such demand, the daughter of Respondent 2 was subjected to cruelty. The Court thus opined that “it seemed that the case under 498-A of the IPC was the outcome of personal grudge and differences between both the parties”.
The Court relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 wherein the Supreme Court observed that “Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and nonbailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested”. The Court further relied on Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, wherein the Supreme Court observed that “it is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations”.
The Court opined that since no specific distinct allegation were made against either of petitioners, i.e., none of petitioners were attributed any specific role in furtherance of general allegations made against them regarding demand of a Maruti car, therefore, this simply led to a suggestion wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each petition in furtherance to the offence.
The Court allowed the present revision and thus the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Bihar sharif and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Courts 1st, Nalanda at Biharsharif were quashed and set aside.
[A v. B, 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 774, decided on 22-3-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Bibek Chaudhari
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Sharvan Kumar, Senior Advocate; Vishal Kumar, Dinesh Maharaj, Advocates
For the Respondents: Anand Kumar, Ravi Bhardwaj, Advocates; Asha Kumari, APP
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
