S 498A IPC| Court Must Scrutinize Complaint Of Wife To Verify If Allegations Are A Case Of “Clever Drafting”: Delhi HC
|The Delhi High Court observed that the court must scrutinize the complaint/FIR of the wife to determine if the allegations are a case of “clever drafting" or have some element of truth in the same.
The Court observed thus in a petition filed by a man under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) praying for quashing an FIR registered under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice Navin Chawla said, “Where the wife is set to implicate the entire family of the husband in a criminal case, it is to be expected that through her lawyer she would get a complaint properly drafted making some specific allegations against each of the family members. If only on such averment, the family members are to face agony of the trial, it would defeat the ends of the justice. In my opinion, therefore, the Court must scrutinise the complaint/FIR to determine whether the allegations are a case of clever drafting or have at least some element of truth in the same. Though the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial, the Court also cannot be a mere spectator and refuse to exercise the power that is vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., where it finds that the continuation of such proceedings would defeat the ends of the justice and would amount to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the accused and be an abuse of the criminal process.”
Advocate Manoj Taneja appeared on behalf of the petitioners while APP Shoaib Haider appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Factual Background -
An FIR was registered on the complaint of a woman who was married to the nephew of the petitioner, that is, his sister’s son. In the FIR itself, it was recorded that she got married to the nephew of the petitioner. It was alleged that right from the date of the marriage, the relatives of the said nephew along with his family members were harassing the woman for dowry and had even given physical beatings to her. Apart from the general allegations, the specific allegation against them was that he along with family members asked the complainant to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- to them as dowry, and when the complainant refused to pay, the petitioner caught hold of the hands from back and his nephew gave merciless beating to the complainant.
It was further alleged that the petitioner along with the mother-in-law of the complainant also gave 10-15 slaps on the face of the complainant, due to which the complainant fell unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, she was again mercilessly beaten and the FIR recorded that a complaint in this regard was made by the complainant the police station. The complainant alleged that no action was taken on the said complaint and also stated that a copy of this complaint was annexed. However, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the entire Trial Court record, a copy of such alleged complaint was not found and was not filed. This was not disputed by the APP or the counsel for the respondents. The FIR was registered on a complaint filed by the woman that is, after 23 years of the marriage and the incident was also about 10 years before the complaint was filed.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “In the present case, what is also important to be emphasised is that the averment of the learned counsel for the petitioners that CAW did not even summon the petitioners for the preliminary inquiry, has gone unrebutted. The FIR and even the consequential charge-sheet are based only on the averment made by the respondent no.2 in her complaint.”
The Court added that barring her statement/complaint, there is no other material placed on record by the woman against the petitioners and in fact, the Trial Court has till date not framed the charges against the petitioners and other co-accused persons under Section 406 of the IPC and has sought clarifications from the respondents in that regard.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR.
Cause Title- X v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:2068)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Manoj Taneja and Vishal Khadia.
Respondents: APP Shoaib Haider, Advocates K.P. Toms, and Piyush Mehra.