Section 498A IPC Cannot Be Applied Mechanically; Police Machinery Cannot Be Utilised For Holding Husband At Ransom: SC

The Supreme Court, while quashing a criminal case filed by a wife against husband, observed that Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically.

The Court said that the Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends.

It added that if the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the wife of her husband and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court should take a pragmatic view of the matter while dealing with petitions filed by husband seeking quashing of criminal proceedings.

The Court was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by a man against the judgment of the High Court by which it rejected his petition and declined to quash the chargesheet under Sections 323, 406, 498A, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The two-Judge Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra observed, “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 chargesheet 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 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.”

The Court further added: "The Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends."

Advocate Yusuf represented the appellant while Advocates Parveen Kumar Aggarwal and Chritarth Palli represented the respondents.

In this case, the appellant (husband) and his family members were alleged to have demanded dowry and thereby cause mental and physical trauma to the complainant (wife). The husband was further alleged to be an alcoholic and used to regularly raise his hands on the wife and treated her inhumanely. He was also alleged to have an extra marital affair with another woman.

Hence, an FIR was registered by the wife and a closure report was filed against the remaining accused as the police carried out investigation and filed chargesheet against the husband. He, therefore, went before the High Court with a quashing petition for the purpose of getting the criminal proceedings quashed. However, the High Court declined to quash the same and in view of this, he was before the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court in the above context of the case noted, “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 have been levelled not only against the Appellant herein but even against his parents, brother & sister. If that be so, then why the police did not deem fit to file chargesheet against the other co-accused? It appears that even the investigating agency was convinced that the FIR was nothing but an outburst arising from a matrimonial dispute.”

The Court further took note of the fact that many times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole and instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings about complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues.

“The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage”, it said.

The Court also observed that the main sufferers in matrimonial disputes are the children because the spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children.

“Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned. The only reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. However, the Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment”, it emphasised.

The Court said that the Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends and in all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically.

“No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. … we have reached to the conclusion that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the Appellant, the same will be nothing short of abuse of process of law & travesty of justice. This is a fit case wherein, the High Court should have exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, quashed the criminal proceedings.

Click here to read/download the Judgment