FIR U/S 498A Quashed as Counterblast to Husband's Divorce Filing

FIR U/S 498A IPC  REGISTERED AFTER THE DIVORCE CASE FILED BY THE HUSBAND, QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT SAME IS A COUNTER BLAST.

In a landmark judgment dated 03.05.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Achin Gupta Vs. The State of Haryana & Anr (Crl. Appeal No.2379 of 2024) while quashing an FIR registered under section 498A IPC and further proceedings emanating therefrom, held that the FIR which has been filed after the divorce case instituted by the husband is a counterblast. It was further observed that- 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.

FACT & ALLEGATIONS OF THE CASE:-

1. That the First Informant Tanu Gupta wife of Achin Gupta and daughter of Harish Manocha, is a resident of House No.1368, Urban Estate - 2, Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar. Her marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and rituals with Accused No.1 on 09.10.2008 in New Delhi. It is the allegation that her parents had spent about thirty lakhs rupees on her engagement ceremony and marriage as per the direction of the accused persons towards furniture, jewellery, clothes, and other household articles. At the time of marriage, her family handed over all her jewellery and stridhan to the accused persons saying that it is the stridhan of the first informant and whenever the first informant will need her stridhan, it has to be given back to her whereupon the accused persons assured the family of the first informant that whenever the first informant will need it, they will give it back to her.

2. That after the marriage, the first informant and Accused No.1 lived as husband and wife at B-39, Phase-2, Vikas Nagar, Hastsaal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi 110059 and the first informant performed all the duties of a wife and out of the said wedlock a boy, namely, Advay aged 8 years was born, who is presently residing with Accused No.1.

3. That after few days of the marriage, when the first informant went to her matrimonial house at that time the Accused persons taunted that your family has lowered down our image in society and before relatives by giving less dowry and said to the first informant that at least your family should have given a big car in the dowry because Accused No.1 is doing a good job and almost earns Rs. 1,50,000/- monthly and for him, we were getting proposal from rich families who would have spent cores of rupees on the marriage. On this, the first informant said that her family had already given 5 lakhs rupees in cash for purchasing the car and have already spent more than their capability and now they cannot fulfill your demand for more dowry whereupon accused persons threatened the first informant saying that if you want to live with us then you have to get our above demand for the dowry fulfilled by your parents otherwise you will not be allowed to live in this house.

4. That whenever the first informant cooked food in the matrimonial home, the accused persons always used to point out unnecessary defects in the food and taunted the first informant that she does not know cooking. To harass and upset the first informant, the accused persons deliberately asked her to make various dishes, and when the first informant showed her inability, the accused persons used to abuse and beat her.

5. Accused No.3 is the mother-in-law of the first informant, who is a teacher she used to leave the house at 7:00 hrs in the morning for school and the first informant used to do all household work and when her mother-in-law returned from school, she deliberately used to point out defects in her work and used to taunt the first informant that your family should have given gold bangles to me and now, you would have to bring gold bangles from your family and when the first informant tell her that her family had already spent a lot over her marriage, then she used to abuse and give beatings to the first informant.

6. That Accused No.4 is the sister-in-law of the first informant who used to say that your family should have given a diamond set for me in the marriage which they have not given and now if you want to live in this house you have to bring diamond set for me otherwise I will not let you live in the house and besides this, Accused No.4 treated the first informant like a domestic servant and used to abuse and give beatings to the first informant over petty issues and instigated the other members of the family against the first informant. That the first informant always performed the duties of an ideal wife with utmost honesty and sincerity and the first informant had always lived with Accused No.1 with love and always fulfilled his demands and the demands of the other accused persons. The first informant used to do all household work at her matrimonial house in whatever manner the accused persons used to ask her. In this way, there is no fault on the part of the first informant. Accused No.1 had never treated the first informant with love and care rather he used to treat the first informant with cruelty. Beating and abusing the first informant on account of the demand for dowry was a daily routine of the Accused persons.

7. That Accused No. 1 is an alcoholic. Who used to torture, abuse, beat the first informant, and treat her inhumanely on account of less dowry under the effect of alcohol. Whenever the first informant used to tell her parents-in-law Accused No. 2 and 3 about this they said that until you do not get our demand of dowry fulfilled by your parents till then you have to bear all this. The Accused persons used to treat the first informant like a domestic servant. The first informant was not allowed to even make phone calls to her family and Accused No. 1 deliberately had hacked the phone of the first informant and she was not allowed to step out of the house. Being a Hindu woman the first informant tolerated all tortures of the Accused with the hope that one day they would mend their ways and the first informants would live in the house happily but the same did not happen rather the behaviour of the Accused persons became more cruel towards the first informant.

8. That Accused No. 5 is the brother-in-law of the first informant and he resides in Delhi. After the marriage, he used to come to the matrimonial house of the first informant along with Accused No. 4 and used to instigate Accused No. 1 to 3 against the first informant. When the first informant used to oppose this he used to hurl abuses to the first informant.

9. That during this period the Accused persons have beaten the first informant multiple times for demand of dowry and whenever the accused persons threw out the first informant out of the house every time the family of the Petitioner used to come along with panchas of the society and sat with the Accused persons and in every meeting at least something was given to the Accused persons but the Accused persons neither left their demand for dowry nor they changed their behaviour.

10. That on 02.03.2012 a son Advay was born to the first informant, the Accused persons said to the first informant that now in the traditional gifts you have to fulfil our demand for dowry. In the traditional gift, the family of the first informant gave 5 tolas of gold ornaments, 51 thousand rupees in cash, and spent about 1 lakh rupees on clothing, sweets, and other items. However, the Accused persons were not satisfied with the articles gifted at that time and were adamant on their demand.

11. That when the first informant was at her matrimonial house she was posted on the post of Assistant Professor in a college in Delhi but Accused No. 1 to 3 used to snatch the whole salary of the first informant and even did not give pocket money to the first informant. Whenever the first informant demanded pocket money from Accused No. 1 he used to beat her and said that you take your expenses from your family. It is pertinent to mention here that even after the marriage the family of the first informant many times gave pocket money and money for other expenses. Before going for her job the first informant used to do all household work and prepared lunch after waking up early in the morning and then she went to the college and after returning in the evening she used to do all household work.

12. That after the marriage, Accused No.3 and 4 pressurized the first informant that you have to wear a saree because according to the tradition, the daughters-in-law used to wear sarees. When the first informant said that I was not able to do the household chores while wearing saree, they both used to beat and abuse the first informant.

13. in 2014, the first informant came to know that her husband Respondent No.1 is in illicit relationship with Vandana Sharma and when the first informant objected to this Accused No. 1 used to abuse and beat her and used to threaten that if you will tell this fact to anyone, I will kill you. It is pertinent to mention here that on 19.03.2019 when Accused No. 1 had taken the abovenamed Vandana Sharma on a tour to Jaipur, Rajasthan at that time the first informant and her brother reached Khaskoti Hotel, Jaipur and there they found both of them in a compromising position and objected to it, Accused No. 1 slapped the first informant and said that why have you brought your family here. At that time the first informant and her family did not initiate any legal proceedings against the Accused No.1 because Accused No.1 had assured that after today he would not meet Vandana Sharma and after this the first informant went to her matrimonial house along with Accused No.1.

14. That even after this Accused No. 1 used to talk with Vandana Sharma on phone and also met with her. While the first informant was at her matrimonial house, Accused No.1 filed a Divorce Petition on 25.07.2019 and which was filed on the basis of false and baseless grounds. In the said case when on 10.08.2019 a summon came at 6:30 in the morning, Accused No. 1 and 2 forcibly got the summons signed by the first informant and said that now we do not need you anymore and when the first informant objected to this, they had beaten the first informant. Thereafter the first informant called her father on the phone and called him at her matrimonial house. Thereafter my family members came to my matrimonial house. Thereafter on 10.08.2019, the first informant filed an application against the Accused persons at Ranholla police station, Delhi and after that the first informant came to her parental house along with her father. Thereafter as per the order of the court the first informant again started living with Accused No. 1 at her matrimonial house.

15. That in March 2020 during the pandemic of Covid-19, Accused No. 1 took the minor son with him and did not come home for so many days before leaving the house Accused No. 1 had cut the water connection, and television connection of the house. Thereafter the first informant called her father on the phone and called him at her house. Thereafter on 30.03.2020 the father of the first informant after getting permission from police the father of the first informant brought her to her parental home from her matrimonial house. When the first informant informed Accused No. 1 over the phone that I am going with my father then he said that who wants to keep you with him. Thereafter the family of the first informant held many meetings in the presence of elders and respectable members of the society and tried to convince the Accused persons that they should keep the first informant with them but the Accused persons were stubborn in their demands of dowry and had clearly refused to keep the first informant without fulfillment of their demand for dowry and when the first informant asked for her jewellery, stridhan and for her minor son, they clearly refused and threatened that if you file any complaint to the police against us we will kill the first informant.

16. in this way, the Accused persons have ignored the first informant due to their dowry demand and they have even not returned the first informant her stridhan and are threatening that if without fulfilling their demand of dowry, the first informant comes to their house, they will kill her. Thus, by giving this complaint, a request is being made to take immediate action against the accused persons for demanding dowry, giving beatings, and threatening me to kill and my stridhan be recovered from the accused persons. It will be so kind of you.

ANALYSIS OF THE COURT:-

1. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed.

2. The Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 got married in October 2008. The couple lived together for more than a decade and in the wedlock, a child was born in March 2012. 

3. We take notice of the fact that the Appellant filed a divorce petition in July 2019 on the grounds of cruelty. The divorce petition was withdrawn as the Appellant was finding it difficult to take care of his child while traveling all the way to Hisar on the dates fixed by the Court. The Appellant’s mother had to file a domestic violence case against the First Informant in October 2020 under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 18. The plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet papers indicate that the allegations leveled by the First Informant are quite vague, general, and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. It is also pertinent to note that in the FIR no specific date or time of the alleged offence/offences has been disclosed. Even the police thought fit to drop the proceedings against the other members of the Appellant’s family. Thus, we are of the view that the FIR lodged by Respondent No. 2 was nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition & also the domestic violence case.

4. It is also pertinent to note that Respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR on 09.04.2021, i.e., nearly 2 years after the filing of the divorce petition by the Appellant and 6 months after the filing of the domestic violence case by her mother-in-law. Thus, the First Informant remained silent for nearly 2 years after the divorce petition was filed. With such an unexplained delay in filing the FIR, we find that the same was filed only to harass the Appellant and his family members. It is now well settled that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution, only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the Section itself. It is also well settled that Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

5. The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the Police Officers, whose powers in that field are unfettered, so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offence is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C.. While exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. As noted above, the inherent jurisdiction under the Section, although wide, yet should be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. The authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has the power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action that would result in injustice and prevent the promotion of justice. In the exercise of the powers, the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that the initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

6. Once the investigation is over and the charge sheet is filed, the FIR pales into insignificance. The court, thereafter, owes a duty to look into all the materials collected by the investigating agency in the form of a charge sheet. There is nothing in the words of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which restricts the exercise of the power of the court to prevent the abuse of the process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It would be a travesty of justice to hold that the proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has materialized into a charge sheet.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT:-

In the aforesaid context, we should look into category 7 as indicated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). Category 7 as laid reads

thus: - “(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

We are of the view that category 7 referred to above should be taken into consideration and applied in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. 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 submission canvassed by the counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 and the State is to be accepted mechanically then in our opinion the very conferment of the inherent power by the Cr.P.C. upon the High Court would be rendered otiose. We are saying so for the simple reason that 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 leveled in the First Information Report. 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. If the allegations alone as leveled, more particularly in a 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 leveled not only against the Appellant herein but even against his parents, brother & sister. If that be so, then why the police did not deem it fit to file a 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.

Many times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavors 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 the complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that comes to mind of the wife, her parents, and her relatives is the Police, as if the Police is the panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches the Police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment, and respecting one another. Tolerance of each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles and 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 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. In matrimonial disputes, the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom in their hearts that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage comes 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. The Police machinery cannot be utilized for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents relatives or friends. In all cases, where the 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, and quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty.

For the foregoing reasons, we have reached the conclusion that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the Appellant, the same will be nothing short of an abuse of the process of law & a 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.