Supreme Court of India
ACHIN GUPTAversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 369
- Decided
- 3 May 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- B PARDIWALA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that where an FIR contains vague, general and sweeping allegations filed with malafide intent, the High Court must exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice.
Summary
The appellant, Achin Gupta, was the sole accused in a chargesheet under IPC sections 323, 406, 498A and 506 arising from an FIR filed by his wife alleging dowry demands and cruelty. The FIR was lodged in April 2021, more than two years after the husband had filed a divorce petition and after the wife’s mother filed a domestic‑violence case, leading the appellant to claim the complaint was a retaliatory weapon. The High Court refused to quash the proceedings under its inherent power under CrPC s.482, holding that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the scope of s.482 and held that where the FIR contains vague, general and sweeping allegations without specific incidents, and appears to be filed with malafide intent, the court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process. The Court found the FIR to be a counter‑blast to the matrimonial dispute, noted the unexplained delay, and concluded that allowing the criminal trial would be an abuse of process and a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, quashed the criminal proceedings, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court was correct in declining to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings.
- Whether the FIR and chargesheet disclose a cognizable offence sufficient to warrant continuation of the case.
- Whether the FIR was filed with malafide intent and constitutes an abuse of the court process.
- Scope and applicability of Section 482 CrPC in matrimonial disputes where allegations are vague and general.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023s. 85, s. 86
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 323, s. 406, s. 498A, s. 506
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Subjects
DowryCruelty and harassmentMental and physical traumaQuashing of criminal proceedingsDomestic violenceSection 498A of Penal Code 1860Sections 85 and 86 of Bhartiya Nyaya SanhitaVague, general and sweeping allegations in FIRSection 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Inherent power of the High CourtEx debito justitiaeAbuse of process of the courtMiscarriage of justiceMatrimonial dispute
Judgment
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 129 : 2024 INSC 369
Achin Gupta
v.
State of Haryana & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024)
03 May 2024
[J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The appellant herein was chargesheeted u/ss.323, 406, 498A and
506 of IPC. The appellant filed a quashing petition for the purpose
of getting the criminal proceedings quashed. The High Court by
its impugned order, declined to quash the criminal proceedings in
exercise of its inherent powers u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. Whether the High Court should have exercised its
inherent power u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing
the criminal proceedings.
Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 323, 406, 498A and 506 – Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – The contents of the FIR
(dated 09.04.2021) indicated that appellant-husband and his
family members had allegedly demanded dowry and thereby
caused mental and physical trauma to the first informant-wife
(respondent no.2) – After investigation, police filed chargesheet
only against appellant – Appellant sought quashing of criminal
proceedings – High Court declined to quash the same –
Correctness:
Held: Appellant and respondent no.2 got married in 2008 – Appellant
filed a divorce petition in July 2019 – However, same was later
withdrawn as appellant was finding it difficult to take care of his
child, while travelling to Court on the dates fixed – Appellant’s
mother had filed a domestic violence case against the respondent
no.2 in october 2020 under provisions of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Allegations levelled in the FIR
were vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of
criminal conduct – FIR has no specific date or time of the alleged
offences – In view of this Court, FIR in question was a counterblast
to the divorce petition and also domestic violence case – The FIR
was lodged on 09.04.2021, nearly 2 years after filing of the divorce
* Author
130 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
petition by appellant and 6 months after filing of the domestic violence
case by her mother-in-law – There is no explanation for delay in
filing FIR – According to the Court, it was only filed to harass the
appellant and his family members – 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. [Paras 16-19, 36]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Circumstances
under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:
Held: It is 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 Code of Criminal Procedure – 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. [Para 20]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Exercise of power under
s.482 – Prevention of abuse of the process of the Court:
Held: 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 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 which would result in
injustice and prevent promotion of justice – In 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. [Para 21]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – No restriction
on exercise of power – Stages of FIR, investigation and
chargesheet:
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 131
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Held: Once the investigation is over and chargesheet 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 chargesheet – 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 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 chargesheet. [Para 22]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – General and
sweeping allegations – Matrimonial dispute – Duty of Court:
Held: If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some
general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record
any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but
abuse of the process of the court – The court owes a duty to
subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough
scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of
truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the
sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge,
more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial
dispute. [Para 25]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A – Matrimonial dispute – Determining
cruelty – Consequence of technical and hyper sensitive
approach:
Held: 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 – 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. [Para 32]
Legislation – Suggestions by Court – Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 – ss. 85 and 86:
132 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Held: Sections 85 and 86 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are
verbatim reproduction of section 498A of the IPC – Attention was
brought to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Preeti
Gupta v. State of Jharkhand – Request made to the Legislature
to look into the issue and take 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. [Para 40]
Case Law Cited
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866;
State of A.P. v. Vangaveeti Nagaiah [2009] 6 SCR
160 : (2009) 12 SCC 466 : AIR 2009 SC 2646; Preeti
Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [2010] 9 SCR 1168 : 2010
Criminal Law Journal 4303 (1); Arnesh Kumar v. State
of Bihar [2014] 8 SCR 128 : Crl.A.No.1277 of 2014
decided on 02.07.2014; Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State
of U.P. [2012] 9 SCR 641 : (2012) 10 SCC 741; State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1990] Supp 3 SCR 259 :
[1992] Supp. (1) SCC 335; Mahmood Ali & Ors. v. State
of U.P & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950 – relied on.
Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky (1950) 2 All ER 398 – referred
to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
American Jurisprudence 2nd edition Vol.24 page 206.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Protection
of Women from Domestic violence Act, 2005; Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
List of Keywords
Dowry; Cruelty and harassment; Mental and physical trauma;
Quashing of criminal proceedings; Domestic violence; Section
498A of Penal Code 1860; Sections 85 and 86 of Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita; Vague, general and sweeping allegations in FIR; Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Inherent power of the
High Court; Ex debito justitiae; Abuse of process of the court;
Miscarriage of justice; Matrimonial dispute.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 133
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2379
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2022 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No.14198 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
Yusuf, Adv. for the Appellant.
Chritarth Palli, Dr. Monika Gusain, Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Abhishek
Grover, Vivek Gupta, Vikas Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J. B. Pardiwala, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 05.04.2022 in the Criminal Main
No. 14198-2022 (CRM-M-141 98-2022) filed by the Appellant herein
(sole accused in the chargesheet) by which the High Court rejected
the petition & thereby declined to quash the chargesheet dated
13.10.2021 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 406,
498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the “IPC”)
arising from the First Information Report No. 95 of 2021 lodged by
the Respondent No. 2 (wife of the Appellant) at the Urban Estate
Hisar Police Station, District Hisar.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The FIR dated 09.04.2021 reads thus: -
"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 and is a peace loving and law
abiding woman and my marriage was solemnized
according to Hindu rites and rituals with Accused
No.1 on 09.10.2008 at New Delhi. My family had
spent about thirty lakhs rupees in my engagement
134 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
ceremony and marriage as per the direction of the
accused persons towards furniture, jewellery, clothes
and other household articles. At the time of marriage,
my 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 the 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 crores 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 fulfil 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
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 135
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
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. That Accused No.3 is the mother-in-law of the first
informant, who is a teacher and she used to leave
the house at 7:00 hrs in the morning for the school
and the first informant used to do all household works
and when her mother-in-law returned from the 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 fulfils his demands and demands of the other
accused persons. That 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. That Accused No.1 had never treated
136 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 demand of
dowry was a daily routine of the Accused persons.
7. That Accused No. 1 is an alcoholic. Who use to
torture, abuse, beat the first informant and treated
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 a hope that one day they will mend
their ways and the first informant’s will 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 alongwith 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
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 137
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
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. But 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 at 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 saree because according to the tradition, the
daughters-in-law used to wear sarees. When the first
informant said that I am not able to do the household
chores while wearing saree, they both used to beat
and abuse the first informant.
13. That 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
138 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 alongwith 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 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 alongwith 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
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 139
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
come home for so many days and 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 phone and called
him at her house. Thereafter on 30.03.2020 the father
of the first informant after getting the 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
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 on 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. That 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.”
4. The plain reading of the aforesaid FIR would indicate that the
Appellant and his family members are alleged to have demanded
dowry and thereby caused mental and physical trauma to the First
Informant. As stated in the FIR, the family of the First Informant had
spent a large sum at the time of marriage and had also handed
over her ‘stridhan’ to the Appellant and his family. However, shortly
140 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
after marriage, the Appellant and his family started harassing the
First Informant on the false pretext that she had failed to discharge
her duties as a wife and daughter-in-law and also pressurised her
for some more dowry. The Appellant is alleged to be an alcoholic
and used to regularly raise his hands on the First Informant and
treat her inhumanely. Allegedly, upon complaining to the Appellant’s
father and mother (Accused Nos. 2 & 3 in the FIR), they would take
the side of their son i.e., the Appellant herein and would pressurize
the First Informant to get something more towards dowry.
5. The First Informant has further alleged that her sister-in-law (Accused
No. 4 in the FIR) used to harass her for a diamond set & would
threaten that failing to get one, she would be driven out of her
matrimonial home.
6. The First Informant was serving as an Assistant Professor and has
alleged that the Appellant and his family would keep her entire
salary. The Appellant would assault her whenever she would ask
for money, saying that the First Informant should ask her family to
bear her personal expenses.
7. It is also alleged that the Appellant was having an extra marital
affair with one another woman, and he would threaten the First
Informant with dire consequences had she told anyone of his affair.
The Appellant continued with the extra marital affair for a long period
& later filed a divorce petition in July 2019 on absolutely false and
baseless grounds.
8. It is further alleged that during the initial days of the Covid-19 lockdown,
the Appellant disconnected the water supply at their matrimonial home
and took away their minor son. In such circumstances, the First
Informant was left with no option but to leave her matrimonial home
and return to her parents. Efforts were made for some settlement
however the Appellant and his family kept on insisting for more dowry
and also refused to return her stridhan.
9. Upon the FIR referred to above being registered, the police carried out
the investigation & proceeded to file chargesheet dated 13.10.2021,
only against the Appellant herein. A closure report was filed against
the remaining 4 accused. The filing of the chargesheet culminated
in the Criminal Case No. CHI/1856/2021in the court of Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Hisar.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 141
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
10. The Appellant herein went before the High Court, with a quashing
petition for the purpose of getting the criminal proceedings quashed.
The High Court vide its judgment & order dated 05.04.2022
(‘impugned order’), declined to quash the criminal proceedings in
exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the “Cr.P.C.”). The High Court
made the following observations: -
“I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length
and have gone through the record carefully.
The main thrust of the arguments raised by counsel
for the petitioner is that the complainant had never
been interested in living in the matrimonial home
and she kept on pressurizing the petitioner for living
separately from his family members. In order to achieve
her objective she kept on causing harassment to the
petitioner and his family members. However, a perusal
of the allegations in the FIR would show that the
petitioner and the family members gave taunting to
the complainant for lowering down their image in the
society. Demand of a car was also made. Complainant
was taunted for not having been incurred sufficient
expenditure on marriage by her parents. There are
allegations of beating the complainant by her husband
and the other family members. It has been specifically
alleged that the petitioner is an alcoholic and has illicit
relations with one Vandana Sharma.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law time and
again regarding exercising the jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR. A reference in this
regard may be made to the law settled in case of
State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335, wherein following parameters have been given:-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of
the various relevant provisions of the Code
under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 of the inherent powers
142 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we have
given the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power could
be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice, though it may not be possible
to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines
or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised:-
(1) where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even
if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused;
(2) where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other materials,
if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do
not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate
as contemplated under Section 155(2) of
the Code;
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 143
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which
a criminal proceeding is instituted) to
the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned
Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party;
(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.”
Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021
SCC Online SC 315 has held that quashing of FIR is
an exception rather than an ordinary rule and the High
Court should exercise the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. sparingly with circumspection.
Taking into consideration the above facts and
circumstances of the present case in the light of
the law settled, the present case does not fall in the
category of cases for invoking the inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The parameters laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court mandate that in a case
where from the bare reading of the allegations in
the FIR no cognizable offence is made out or it has
been lodged to wreak the vengeance then the High
Court may intervene. The veracity of the allegations
144 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
levelled by the complainant can be assessed only
after a thorough investigation and thereafter by the
Trial Court on the basis of the evidence led before it.
Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the
petitioner does not qualify for exercising its jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Resultantly, the petition being
devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. In view of the aforesaid, the Appellant is before this Court with the
present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
12. Mr. Yusuf, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant herein
made the following submissions: -
● The Appellant and his family had filed a divorce petition and
also a domestic violence case against the First Informant in
2019 and 2020 respectively. As a counter blast to the same,
the FIR No. 95 of 2021 dated 09.04.2021 came to be lodged
after a period of more than 11 months from the date the First
Informant left her matrimonial home and that too, only after the
service of summons to her in the domestic violence case. No
plausible explanation has been offered for such delay.
● The FIR was filed with an oblique motive & by way of vengeance
towards the Appellant. The First Informant and Appellant were
married for over 12 years.
● The allegations in the FIR are too vague and general in nature.
There is no specific allegation/incident of harassment levelled
against the Appellant in the FIR.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST INFORMANT/
RESPONDENT NO. 2
13. Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the
First Informant herein made the following submissions:
● The Appellant and his family continuously demanded for
additional dowry after the marriage. They used to beat the First
Informant and take away her entire salary.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 145
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
● After filing of the divorce petition, the Appellant stopped paying
anything towards her maintenance and also disconnected the
basic facilities such as water connection etc., leaving her with
no option but to leave the matrimonial home and return to her
parents house at Hisar.
● The Appellant had an affair with another woman. Only with a
view to save the marriage, she kept quiet and did not inform
about it to the others.
● The domestic violence case filed against the First Informant is
absolutely frivolous and vexatious.
● The Appellant failed to inform this Court that he had withdrawn
the divorce proceedings instituted against the First Informant.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
14. Mr. Chritarth Palli, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State (Respondent No. 1 herein) made the following submissions:
● The Police upon registration of the FIR, conducted a fair
investigation. On completion of the investigation, the proceedings
against 4 out of the 5 accused came to be dropped. However,
having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled, the
investigating officer thought fit to file chargesheet against the
Appellant.
ANALYSIS
15. 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?
16. 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.
17. We take notice of the fact that the Appellant filed a divorce petition
in July 2019 on the ground of cruelty. The divorce petition was
withdrawn as the Appellant was finding it difficult to take care of his
child, while travelling all the way to Hisar on the dates fixed by the
Court. The Appellant’s mother had to file a domestic violence case
146 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 levelled 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
the Respondent No. 2 was nothing but a counterblast to the divorce
petition & also the domestic violence case.
19. It is also pertinent to note that the 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.
20. 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.
21. 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
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 147
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone
courts exist. The authority of the court exists for 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
which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In
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.
22. Once the investigation is over and chargesheet 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 chargesheet. 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 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 chargesheet.
23. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866, this
Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power
can, and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: -
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance e.g. want of
sanction;
ii) where the allegations in the first information report
or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in
their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there
is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced
clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
148 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
24. This Court, in the case of State of A.P. v. Vangaveeti Nagaiah,
reported in (2009) 12 SCC 466 : AIR 2009 SC 2646, interpreted
clause (iii) referred to above, observing thus: -
“6. In dealing with the last category, it is important to
bear in mind the distinction between a case where there
is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which
is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made,
and a case where there is legal evidence which, on
appreciation, may or may not support the accusations.
When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon
an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable
or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it
accusation would not be sustained. That is the function
of the trial Judge. Judicial process no doubt should
not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless
harassment Court should be circumspect and judicious
in exercising discretion and should take all relevant
facts and circumstances into consideration before
issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the
hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta
to harass any person needlessly. At the same time
the Section is not an instrument handed over to an
accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about
its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under
Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases
where the High Court may exercise its power under
it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice were set out in some detail by this Court
in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC
335]. A note of caution was, however, added that the
power should be exercised sparingly and that too in
rarest of rare cases.
The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as
follows:
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 149
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
their face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)
of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute
a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
a Police Officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach
a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/
or where there is a specific provision in the Code or
the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(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.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
150 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and
sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances
of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the
court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in
the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether
there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are
made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a
criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from
a matrimonial dispute.
26. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2010 Criminal
Law Journal 4303 (1), this Court observed the following: -
“28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately
matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All
the courts in our country including this court are flooded with
matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent
and unrest in the family life of a large number of people
of the society.
29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases
emanating from section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860
which reads as under:
“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever,
being the husband or the relative of the husband
of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years and shall also
be liable to fine.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,
‘cruelty’ means:
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature
as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger
to life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 151
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
her or any person related to her to meet
any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure
by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand.”
30. It is a matter of common experience that most of
these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in
the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper
deliberations. We come across a large number of such
complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with
oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the
number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also
a matter of serious concern.
31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social
responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber
of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure
that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not
be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the
complaints are filed either on their advice or with their
concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong
to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions
and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a
basic human problem and must make serious endeavour
to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of
that human problem. They must discharge their duties to
the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace
and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members
of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should
not lead to multiple cases.
32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint
the implications and consequences are not properly
visualized by the complainant that such complaint can
lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to
the complainant, accused and his close relations.
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and
punish the guilty and protect the innocent To find out the
truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints.
The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate
152 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the
conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real
truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious
in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic
realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial
cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close
relations who had been living in different cities and never
visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant
resided would have an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized
with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that
long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony
and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is
also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by
the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations
had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the
chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process
of suffering is extremely long and painful.
34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe
that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by
the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge
that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected
in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over
implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.
35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all
concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not
be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy.
Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have
not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous
social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness
of the society. It is high time that the legislature must
take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make
suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the
legislature to take into consideration the informed public
opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and
make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law.
We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment
to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary,
Government of India who may place it before the Hon’ble
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 153
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Minister for Law and Justice to take appropriate steps in
the larger interest of the society.”
(Emphasis supplied)
27. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to and rely upon the decision of
this Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (Criminal
Appeal No. 1277 of 2014, decided on 2nd July, 2014). In the said
case, the petitioner, apprehending arrest in a case under Section
498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,
prayed for anticipatory bail before this Court, having failed to obtain
the same from the High Court. In that context, the observations made
by this Court in paras 6, 7 and 8 respectively are worth taking note
of. They are reproduced below: -
“6. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in
recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered
in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced
with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment
to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives.
The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable
offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the
provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by
disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the
husband and his relatives arrested under this provision.
In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and
grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad
for decades are arrested. Crime in India 2012 Statistics
published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of
Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over
India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-
A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a
quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were
women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters
of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net.
Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the
crimes committed under Penal Code, 1860. It accounts for
4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of
penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and
hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section
498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate
154 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many
as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current
estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.
7. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars
forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is
a battle between the law makers and the police and it
seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson
implicit and embodied in the Cr.PC. It has not come out of
its colonial image despite six decades of independence, it
is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression
and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for
caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been
emphasized time and again by Courts but has not yielded
desired result. Power to arrest greatly contributes to its
arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check
it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative
sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and
then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become
a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or
act with oblique motive.
8. Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this Court
in a large number of judgments emphasized the need to
maintain a balance between individual liberty and societal
order while exercising the power of arrest. Police officers
make arrest as they believe that they possess the power
to do so. As the arrest curtails freedom, brings humiliation
and casts scars forever, we feel differently. We believe
that no arrest should be made only because the offence
is non-bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for
the police officers to do so. The existence of the power
to arrest is one thing, the justification for the exercise of
it is quite another. Apart from power to arrest, the police
officers must be able to justify the reasons thereof. No
arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere
allegation of commission of an offence made against a
person. It would be prudent and wise for a police officer
that no arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction
reached after some investigation as to the genuineness of
the allegation. Despite this legal position, the Legislature
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 155
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
did not find any improvement. Numbers of arrest have not
decreased. Ultimately, the Parliament had to intervene
and on the recommendation of the 177th Report of the
Law Commission submitted in the year 2001, Section 41
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.), in
the present form came to be enacted. It is interesting to
note that such a recommendation was made by the Law
Commission in its 152nd and 154th Report submitted as
back in the year 1994. …”
(Emphasis Supplied)
28. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P. reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 741, this Court observed as under: -
“19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents
of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no
allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji
Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have
been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the
names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute
without allegation of active involvement in the matter would
not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking
the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency
to involve the entire family members of the household in
the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute
specially if it happens soon after the wedding.
20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt
observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao
v. L.H.V. Prasad reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein
also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the
High Court should have quashed the complaint arising
out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members
had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was
quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein
with which we entirely agree that:
“there has been an outburst of matrimonial
dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable
the young couple to settle down in life and live
156 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which
elders of the family are also involved with the
result that those who could have counselled
and brought about rapprochement are rendered
helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the
criminal case. There are many reasons which
need not be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may
ponder over their defaults and terminate the
disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead
of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes
years and years to conclude and in that process
the parties lose their young days in chasing their
cases in different courts.”
The view taken by the judges in this matter
was that the courts would not encourage such
disputes.
21. In yet another case reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 : AIR
2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana
it was observed that there is no doubt that the object of
introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the
Penal Code, 1860 was to prevent the torture to a woman
by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section
498A was added with a view to punish the husband and
his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her
relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the
proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498A
against the husband and his relatives and subsequently
she has settled her disputes with her husband and his
relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual
divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High
Court would not be proper as it would prevent woman from
settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends
of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section
320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of
quashing. It would however be a different matter depending
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 157
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether
to exercise or not to exercise such a power.”
(Emphasis supplied)
29. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 as well as
the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the High
Court was justified in not embarking upon an enquiry as regards the
truthfulness or reliability of the allegations in exercise of its inherent
power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as once there are allegations
disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence then whether they
are true or false should be left to the trial court to decide.
30. In the aforesaid context, we should look into the category 7 as
indicated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The
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.”
31. We are of the view that the 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 the 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
levelled 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
158 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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
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.
32. 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 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 first thing that comes in the 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 up
to 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 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. In matrimonial disputes the
main sufferers are the children. 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
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 159
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
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 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. 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.
33. Lord Denning, in Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky, (1950) 2 All ER 398
observed as under: -
“When the conduct consists of direct action by one against
the other, it can then properly be said to be aimed at the
other, even though there is no desire to injure the other or
to inflict misery on him. Thus, it may consist of a display
of temperament, emotion, or perversion whereby the one
gives vent to his or her own feelings, not intending to injure
the other, but making the other the object-the butt-at whose
expense the emotion is relieved.”
When there is no intent to injure, they are not to be
regarded as cruelty unless they are plainly and distinctly
proved to cause injury to health……..when the conduct
does not consist of direct action against the other, but
only of misconduct indirectly affecting him or her, such
as drunkenness, gambling, or crime, then it can only
properly be said to be aimed at the other when it is done,
not only for the gratification of the selfish desires of the
one who does it, but also in some part with an intention to
injure the other or to inflict misery on him or her. Such an
intention may readily be inferred from the fact that it is the
160 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
natural consequence of his conduct, especially when the
one spouse knows, or it has already been brought to his
notice, what the consequences will be, and nevertheless
he does it, careless and indifferent whether it distresses
the other spouse or not The Court is, however not bound
to draw the inference. The presumption that a person
intends the natural consequences of his acts is one that
may not must-be drawn. If in all the circumstances it is
not the correct inference, then it should not be drawn. In
cases of this kind, if there is no desire to injure or inflict
misery on the other, the conduct only becomes cruelty
when the justifiable remonstrances of the innocent party
provoke resentment on the part of the other, which evinces
itself in actions or words actually or physically directed at
the innocent party.”
34. What constitutes cruelty in matrimonial matters has been well
explained in American Jurisprudence 2nd edition Vol. 24 page 206.
It reads thus: -
“The question whether the misconduct complained of
constitute cruelty and the like for divorce purposes is
determined primarily by its effect upon the particular person
complaining of the acts. The question is not whether
the conduct would be cruel to a reasonable person or a
person of average or normal sensibilities, but whether it
would have that effect upon the aggrieved spouse. That
which may be cruel to one person may be laughed off by
another, and what may not be cruel to an individual under
one set of circumstances may be extreme cruelty under
another set of circumstances.”
(Emphasis supplied)
35. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in Mahmood Ali &
Ors. v. State of U.P & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950, authored by
one of us (J.B. Pardiwala, J.), the legal principle applicable apropos
Section 482 of the CrPC was examined. Therein, it was observed
that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either
the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC or the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the
criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 161
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the
ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances,
the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little
more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the
Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients
to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous
or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many
other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case
over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection, to try and read between the lines.
36. For the foregoing reasons, 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.
37. Before we close the matter, we would like to invite the attention of the
Legislature to the observations made by this Court almost 14 years
ago in Preeti Gupta (supra) as referred to in para 26 of this judgment.
We once again reproduce paras 34 and 35 respectively as under:
“34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe
that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by
the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge
that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected
in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over
implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.
35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all
concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not
be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy.
Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have
not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous
social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness
of the society. It is high time that the legislature must
take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make
suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the
legislature to take into consideration the informed public
opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and
162 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law.
We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment
to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary,
Government of India who may place it before the Hon’ble
Minister for Law and Justice to take appropriate steps in
the larger interest of the society.”
38. In the aforesaid context, we looked into Sections 85 and 86
respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which is to come
into force with effect from 1st July, 2024 so as to ascertain whether
the Legislature has seriously looked into the suggestions of this Court
as made in Preeti Gupta (supra). Sections 85 and 86 respectively
are reproduced herein below:
“Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting
her to cruelty.
85. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Cruelty defined.
86. For the purposes of section 85, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely
to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is
with a view to coercing her or any person related to her
to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.”
39. The aforesaid is nothing but verbatim reproduction of Section 498A
of the IPC. The only difference is that the Explanation to Section
498A of the IPC, is now by way of a separate provision, i.e., Section
86 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
40. We request the Legislature to look into the issue as highlighted
above taking into consideration the pragmatic realities and consider
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 163
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
making necessary changes in Sections 85 and 86 respectively of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, before both the new provisions
come into force.
41. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby
set aside.
42. The proceedings of CHI/1856/2021 arising from FIR No. 95 of 2021
dated 09.04.2021, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Hisar are hereby quashed.
43. Pending application(s) if any shall be disposed of.
44. We direct the Registry to send one copy each of this judgment to the
Union Law Secretary and Union Home Secretary, to the Government
of India who may place it before the Hon’ble Minister for Law and
Justice as well as the Hon’ble Minister for Home.
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Result of the case:
Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Dowry"Sign in to search