Misuse Of Section 498A IPC: SC Urges Parliament To Make Necessary Changes In Sections 85,86 Of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Before It Comes Into Force
|While quashing a criminal case filed by a wife against husband under Section 498A IPC, the Supreme Court has requested the Legislature to consider making necessary changes in Sections 85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, before the new provisions come into force.
The Court noted that the Legislature has not seriously looked into the suggestions made by it 14 years ago in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand 2010 Criminal Law Journal 4303. In the said judgment, it was observed that a serious relook of the entire provision (Section 498A IPC) is necessary.
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 comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said, “We request the Legislature to look into the issue as highlighted above taking into consideration the pragmatic realities and consider making necessary changes in Sections 85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, before both the new provisions come into force.”
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 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 Bench added that many times the services of professionals are availed for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same.
“However, that does not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are allegations in the First Information Report and the chargesheet papers disclose the commission of a cognizable offence”, it further added.
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.
The Court also referred to its 14-year-old judgment in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand reported in 2010 Criminal Law Journal 4303 (1).
The Court, therefore, directed the Registry to send one copy each of the judgment to the Union Law Secretary and Union Home Secretary.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and quashed the proceedings.
Cause Title- Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 369)