Section 498A IPC Being Misused For Unleashing Wife’s Personal Vendetta Against Husband & His Family: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and expressed its concern over the fact that there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife.
The Apex Court also held that a mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud.
The Court was considering a challenge to a Telangana High Court Order refusing to quash the criminal proceedings in an FIR registered against the appellants under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1e860 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh said, “It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. ”
Advocate Shubham Kumar represented the Appellants while AOR Devina Sehgal represented the Respondent.
As per the facts of the case, the marriage of first appellant husband and respondent wife was solemnised in the year 2015 as per Hindu rites and rituals in Andhra Pradesh. The wife lodged a complaint against her husband and in-laws alleging that at the time of her marriage,her father gave net cash of Rs 10 lakh, 10 tolas of gold, and other household articles as dowry and also spent Rs. 5 lakh towards marriage expenses. The couple also had two minor children.
It was alleged that her husband used to abuse her in filthy language and used to suspect her character. He also used to come home inebriated and harassed her by having an illegal affair with one woman. In so far as the in-laws were concerned, it was alleged that they used to instigate the appellant-wife and demanded more dowry from her. The husband’s plea to quash the proceedings was rejected by the High Court. However, the High Court granted protection by directing the Investigation Officer not to arrest appellants until the chargesheet is filed and also held that the custodial interrogation of the accused wasn’t required in matrimonial disputes. Being aggrieved by the High Court’s refusal to quash the criminal proceedings, the appellants preferred the appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Bench, at the outset, explained that Section 498A of the IPC deals with offences committed by the husband or relatives of the husband subjecting cruelty towards the wife and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act talk about the penalty for giving or taking or demanding a dowry. On a perusal of the allegations in the FIR, the Bench observed that the allegations made by respondent-wife were vague and omnibus. Specific details or any particular instance of harassment were not described. The time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred was also not mentioned and therefore, the FIR lacked concrete and precise allegations.
The facts of the case suggested that losing hope in the marriage, the husband issued a legal notice seeking divorce by mutual consent. Instead of responding to the said legal notice, respondent-wife lodged the present FIR. It was also noticed that the respondent-wife had not only deserted the husband but had also abandoned her two children as well, who were now in the care and custody of appellant -husband.
Further, the respondent-wife in response to the missing complaint filed by the appellant-husband addressed a letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, stating that she had left the matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a quarrel with the appellant because of one Govindan with whom the second respondent was in contact over calls.
Noting that the in-laws had been living in different cities and had not resided in the matrimonial house of the couple, the Bench found no case to be made out against them. The Bench also said, “We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.”
It was further observed that the present case fell within the contours of judgment in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein parameters have been formulated under which the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC could be exercised. Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench quashed the FIR.
Cause Title: X v. State of Telangana & Another [Neutral Citaiton: 2024 INSC 953]
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocate Shubham Kumar,AOR Chand Qureshi
Respondents: AOR Devina Sehgal, Advocate S Uday Bhanu
