Supreme Court of India
DARA LAKSHMI NARAYANA & OTHERSversusSTATE OF TELANGANA & ANOTHER
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 953
- Decided
- 10 December 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- B V NAGARATHNA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the FIR was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive and therefore must be quashed under the inherent powers of the court under Section 482 CrPC.
Summary
The marriage between appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 deteriorated, leading the wife to file an FIR under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act alleging cruelty and dowry demands, while also implicating the husband’s parents and sisters-in-law. The appellants contended that the FIR was a retaliatory measure filed after the husband sought divorce, that the allegations were vague, and that the family members had no involvement in the alleged offences. The High Court refused to quash the proceedings, but the Supreme Court examined the FIR and found the complaints against the husband’s relatives to be omnibus, unsupported by specific facts, and motivated by personal vendetta. Applying the Bhajan Lal parameters, the Court held that the proceeding fell within category (7) of malicious prosecution and that the High Court erred in not exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and quashed the FIR and the pending criminal trial against the appellants.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act should be quashed on the ground that the allegations are vague, unsupported and filed with ulterior motive.
- Whether the High Court erred in refusing to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 41-A, s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961s. 3, s. 4
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 498A
Subjects
QuashingRefusal to quashFIROngoing criminal proceedingsSection 498A IPCMatrimonial disputeCounterblastDowry ActUlterior motiveMalicious prosecutionSection 482 CrPC
Judgment
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 559 : 2024 INSC 953
Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others
v.
State of Telangana & Another
(Criminal Appeal No. 5199 of 2024)
10 December 2024
[B.V. Nagarathna* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
In the facts and circumstances of the case and after examining
the FIR, whether the High Court was correct in refusing to quash
the ongoing criminal proceedings against the appellants under
Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 –
s.498A – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss.3, 4 – Refusal to
quash criminal proceedings, when not justified – FIR lodged by
respondent No.2-wife against appellants under Section 498A,
IPC and Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Act – Appellants sought
quashing of the criminal proceedings – Refused by High
Court – Challenge to:
Held: Respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house after quarrelling
with appellant No.1-husband with respect to her interactions with a
third person in their marriage – Later, she came back assuring to
have a cordial relationship however, once again left the matrimonial
house – Complaint under Section 498A, IPC was lodged by the
respondent No.2 as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution
of marriage sought by the appellant No.1 – No substantial and
specific allegations were made against appellant Nos.2 to 6
(family members of appellant No.1) other than stating that they
used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry –
Allegations against the appellants were vague and omnibus, too
far-fetched and not believable – Appellant Nos.2 to 6 were living
in different cities and admittedly, never resided with the couple
and their children – FIR filed by respondent No.2 was initiated
with ulterior motives and is not a genuine complaint rather it is a
retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with appellant No.1
and his family members – Present case falls within category (7)
* Author
560 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal case – High
Court erred in not exercising the powers under Section 482,
CrPC – Impugned order set aside – Quashing petition allowed –
FIR under Section 498A, IPC and Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Act,
chargesheet and the trial pending against the appellants, quashed.
[Paras 21, 22, 24-26, 29, 32, 33]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A – Growing misuse of, to seek
compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife –
Matrimonial discords – Implication of all the members of the
husband’s family without specific allegations indicating their
active involvement – Generalised and sweeping accusations
unsupported by concrete evidence – Practice deprecated –
Cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in
the absence of a clear prima facie case.
Words and Phrases – ‘Cruelty’ – Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A –
Discussed.
Case Law Cited
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1990] Supp. 3 SCR 259 : (1992)
Supp. 1 SCC 335; G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [2000] 2 SCR 123 :
(2000) 3 SCC 693; Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [2010] 9
SCR 1168 : (2010) 7 SCC 667 – relied on.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [2014] 8 SCR 128 : (2014) 8
SCC 273 – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
List of Keywords
Quashing; Refusal to quash; FIR; Ongoing criminal proceedings;
Complaint under Section 498A, IPC; Matrimonial house/home;
Counterblast; Petition for dissolution of marriage; Family members
of husband; No substantial and specific allegations; Harassment of
innocent family members; Family members living in different cities;
Instigate; No harassment for dowry; Allegations vague and omnibus;
Matrimonial dispute/discord; Domestic disputes; Ulterior motives;
Cruelty; Not a genuine complaint; Retaliatory measure; Settle scores/
grudges; Abuse of Court’s process; Mere reference to the names of
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 561
Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana & Another
family members; Without active involvement; Tendency to implicate
all the members of the husband’s family; Generalised and sweeping
accusations; Misuse of legal provisions and legal process.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 16239 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.02.2022 of the High Court
for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRLP No. 1479 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
Shubham Kumar, Anubhav Jain, Ms. Nayan Saini, Dhruv Goyal,
Ms. Honey Verma, Rahul Mohod, Sanjay Gyan, Dr. Varnit Sharma,
Chand Qureshi, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Ms. Devina Sehgal, S Uday Bhanu, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Nagarathna, J.
Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the High
Court for the State of Telangana in Criminal Petition No.1479 of 2022
refusing to quash the criminal proceedings in FIR No.82 of 2022 dated
01.02.2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda
against the appellant Nos.1 to 6 herein (collectively referred as
“appellants”) under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(“IPC”, for short) and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
(“Dowry Act”, for short), the appellants have preferred this appeal.
3. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the marriage of appellant
No.1 husband and respondent No.2 wife was solemnised on
08.03.2015 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Chennakesava Swamy
Temple, Marakapuram, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are
the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of respondent No.2
and appellant Nos.4 to 6 are sisters-in-law of respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the appellant Nos.1
562 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to 6 and accused No.7 who is her brother-in-law which was registered
as FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 for the offences punishable
under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Act registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda. As per
the said FIR, it was alleged that at the time of her marriage, the
father of respondent No.2 gave net cash of Rs.10 lakhs, 10 tolas
of gold, and other household articles as dowry and also spent Rs.
5 lakhs towards marriage expenses. After the marriage, the couple
started residing at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where appellant No.1 was
working in Southern Railways. Out of their wedlock, respondent
No.2 and appellant No.1 have 2 minor children. The first child was
born in the year 2016 and the second child was born in the year
2017. After marriage, appellant No.1 started harassing her both
physically and mentally for want of additional dowry. Appellant No.1
also used to abuse respondent No.1 in filthy language and used
to suspect her character. He also used to come home inebriated
and harassed her by having an illegal affair with one Mounika. In
so far as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, respondent No.2
alleged that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding
more dowry her.
4. Being aggrieved by the said criminal proceedings pending against
them, the appellants and accused No.7 approached the High Court
by filing Criminal Petition No.1479 of 2022 under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (“CrPC”) seeking quashing of
the FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 registered with Neredmet
Police Station, Rachakonda.
5. By the impugned order dated 16.02.2024, the High Court refused to
quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants and
accused No.7 in FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 and disposed
of the Criminal Petition No.1479 of 2022 directing the Investigation
Officer to follow the mandatory procedure contemplated under
Section 41-A of CrPC and also the guidelines issued by this Court
in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273. The High
Court further granted protection by directing the Investigation Officer
not to arrest to appellants until the chargesheet is filed. The High
Court noted that there are matrimonial disputes between appellant
No.1 and respondent No.2 and that in matrimonial disputes, custodial
interrogation of the accused is not required. Being aggrieved by the
High Court’s refusal to quash the criminal proceedings arising out
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 563
Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana & Another
of FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022, the appellants herein have
preferred the instant appeal.
6. Subsequent to the impugned order dated 16.02.2022, the police
have filed a chargesheet dated 03.06.2022 before the Court of
1st Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad vide C.C. No.1544
of 2022 against the appellant Nos.1 to 6 under Section 498A of the
IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act. However, the charges
were dropped against accused No.7 (respondent No.2’s brother-
in-law). The criminal case against the appellants herein is pending
trial in the Court of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
counsel for the respondent-State and perused FIR No.82 of 2022
dated 01.02.2022. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent
No.2 despite service of notice.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants
never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2. Respondent
No.2 in fact used to leave the matrimonial house uninformed. In
fact, on one such occasion when she left the matrimonial house on
03.10.2021, appellant No.1 made a police complaint on 05.10.2021.
When the police found her whereabouts, she was allegedly living
with someone. Respondent No.2 after being counselled, returned to
her matrimonial house. It was further submitted that respondent No.2
addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting to close the complaint
made by appellant No.1 wherein she admitted that she had left her
matrimonial house after quarrelling with appellant No.1 because
of one Govindan, with whom she was talking over the phone for
the past ten days continuously. She also stated that she would not
repeat such acts in future. Learned counsel for the appellants further
submitted that respondent No.2 again left the matrimonial house
leaving appellant No.1 and children behind. It was submitted that
having no other option, appellant No.1 issued a legal notice dated
13.12.2021 to respondent No.2 seeking divorce by mutual consent.
Therefore, it was argued that only as a counterblast, the present
FIR has been lodged by respondent No.2. on 01.02.2022. Insofar as
appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that no specific allegation is made against them in the
564 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
FIR. It was further submitted that appellant Nos.2 to 6 did not live in
the matrimonial house of the couple and have been unnecessarily
dragged into this case. Therefore, it was submitted that the present
case is a fit case for quashing the FIR and accordingly prayed that
this Court may set-aside the impugned order dated 16.02.2022 and
quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants herein
arising out of FIR No. 82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted
that on a perusal of the FIR, it would reveal that a prima facie case
has been made out against the appellants. It was submitted that,
as per the FIR, respondent No.2 was harassed both physically and
mentally for want of additional dowry and that appellant No.1 used to
come home in a drunken state and used to have an illicit affair with
one Mounika. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted
that the father of respondent No.2 was examined as LW3 who stated
in the examination that at the time of marriage, he gave Rs.10 lakhs
and 10 tolas of gold as dowry. It was further submitted that after the
marriage, appellant No.1 used to harass and abuse respondent No.2
and appellant Nos.2 to 6 used to provoke and instigate appellant
No.1. Hence, learned counsel for the respondent-State argued that
the High Court, vide impugned order, was justified in declining to
quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants herein
arising out of FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 and prayed for
the dismissal of the present appeal as well.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
having perused the material on record, the only question that arises
for our consideration is whether FIR No.82 of 2022, dated 01.02.2022,
lodged against the appellants herein should be quashed.
11. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
(“Bhajan Lal”), this Court formulated the parameters under which
the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC could be exercised.
While it is not necessary to revisit all the parameters, a few that are
relevant to the present case may be set out as under:
“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 or the inherent powers under
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 565
Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana & Another
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give 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 channelised 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.
x x x
(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.”
12. In the instant case, the allegations in the FIR are under Section 498A
of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act.
13. Section 498A of the IPC deals with offences committed by the
husband or relatives of the husband subjecting cruelty towards the
wife. The said provision reads as under:
“498A. 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 purpose 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
566 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(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.”
14. Further, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act talk about the penalty
for giving or taking or demanding a dowry.
“3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.—
(1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives
or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not
be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the
value of such dowry, whichever is more.
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special
reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence
of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,—
(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage
to the bride without any demand having been made
in that behalf:
Provided that such presents are entered in a list
maintained in accordance with the rules made under
this Act;
(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage
to the bridegroom without any demand having been
made in that behalf:
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained
in accordance with the rules made under this Act:
Provided further that where such presents are made by or
on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride,
such presents are of a customary nature and the value
thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial
status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such
presents are given.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 567
Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana & Another
4. Penalty for demanding dowry.—If any person
demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other
relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the
case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six
months, but which may extend to two years and with fine
which may extend to ten thousand rupees:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special
reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a
sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six
months.”
15. An offence is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC when a
husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty, which may
result in imprisonment for a term extending up to three years and
a fine. The Explanation under Section 498A of the IPC defines
“cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC to mean any of
the acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b). The first limb of clause (a)
of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that “cruelty”
means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to drive
the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of clause (a) of the
Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that cruelty means
any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave injury
or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman. Further, clause (b) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the
IPC states that cruelty would also include harassment of the woman
where such harassment is to coerce 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.
16. Further, Section 3 of the Dowry Act deals with penalty for giving
or taking dowry. It states that any person who engages in giving,
taking, or abetting the exchange of dowry, shall face a punishment of
imprisonment for a minimum of five years and a fine of not less than
fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the dowry, whichever is greater.
Section 4 of the Dowry Act talks of penalty for demanding dowry. It
states that any person demanding dowry directly or indirectly, from
the parents or other relatives or guardians of a bride or bridegroom
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
568 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with
fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
17. The issue for consideration is whether, given the facts and
circumstances of the case and after examining the FIR, the High Court
was correct in refusing to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings
against the appellants arising out of FIR No. 82 of 2022 dated
01.02.2022 under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Act.
18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by
respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that
appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated
him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details
or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also
not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged
harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise
allegations.
19. Further, the record reveals that respondent No.2 on 03.10.2021 left
the matrimonial house leading appellant No.1 to file a police complaint
on 05.10.2021. When the police officials traced her, respondent No.2
addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting to close the complaint
made by appellant No.1. In the said letter, respondent No.2 admitted
that she left her matrimonial house after quarrelling with appellant
No.1 as she was talking to a person by name Govindan over the
phone for the past ten days continuously. She further admitted that
appellant No.1 was taking good care of her. She also stated that
she will not engage in such actions in future. Despite that, in 2021
itself, respondent No.2 once again left the matrimonial house leaving
appellant No.1 and also her minor children.
20. Losing hope in the marriage, appellant No.1 issued a legal notice to
respondent No.1 seeking divorce by mutual consent on 13.12.2021.
Instead of responding to the said legal notice issued by appellant
No.1, respondent No.2 lodged the present FIR 82 of 2022 on
01.02.2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda
under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act.
21. Given the facts of this case and in view of the timing and context of
the FIR, we find that respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house on
03.10.2021 after quarrelling with appellant No.1 with respect to her
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 569
Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana & Another
interactions with a third person in their marriage. Later she came
back to her matrimonial house assuring to have a cordial relationship
with appellant No.1. However, she again left the matrimonial house.
When appellant No.1 issued a legal notice seeking divorce on
13.12.2021, the present FIR came to be lodged on 01.02.2022
by respondent No.2. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the FIR
filed by respondent No. 2 is not a genuine complaint rather it is a
retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with appellant No.1
and his family members.
22. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 State contended that a
prima facie case was made out against the appellants for harassing
respondent No.2 and demanding dowry from her. However, we
observe that the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the FIR seem
to be motivated by a desire for retribution rather than a legitimate
grievance. Further, the allegations attributed against the appellants
herein are vague and omnibus.
23. Respondent No.2 has not contested the present case either before
the High Court or this Court. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that
respondent No.2 has not only deserted appellant No.1 but has
also abandoned her two children as well, who are now in the care
and custody of appellant No.1. The counsel for the appellants has
specifically submitted that respondent No.2 has shown no inclination
to re-establish any relationship with her children.
24. Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they
have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged
into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of
the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations
have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating
that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more
dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with
the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their
children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal,
Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos.4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru
and Guntur respectively.
25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal
case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations
indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is
a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there
570 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s
family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord.
Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by
concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the
basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such
cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process
and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.
In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members
of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities
and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1
and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged
into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the
process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made
against each of them.
26. In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant and his wife i.e. the
second respondent herein resided at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where
he was working in Southern Railways. They were married in the
year 2015 and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the
second respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore, it cannot
be believed that there was any harassment for dowry during the said
period or that there was any matrimonial discord. Further, the second
respondent in response to the missing complaint filed by the first
appellant herein on 05.10.2021 addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021
to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division
requesting for closure of the said complaint as she had stated that
she had left the matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a
quarrel with the appellant No.1 because of one Govindan with whom
the second respondent was in contact over telephone for a period
of ten days. She had also admitted that she would not repeat such
acts in future. In the above conspectus of facts, we find that the
allegations of the second respondent against the appellants herein
are too far-fetched and are not believable.
27. We find that the High Court noted that there were also allegations
against respondent No.2 and matrimonial disputes are pending
between the parties. Therefore, the High Court came to the conclusion
that custodial interrogation of the appellants was not necessary
and protected the personal liberty of the appellants directing the
Investigation Officer not to arrest the appellants till the completion
of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet. Albeit the said
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 571
Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana & Another
findings and observations, the High Court ultimately refused to quash
the criminal proceedings against the appellants.
28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment
was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband
and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However,
in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial
disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and
tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has
been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A
of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the
husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised
allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to
the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm
twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is
taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his
family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands
of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned
against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a
clear prima facie case against them.
29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered
cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A
of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a
complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention
of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case
like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for
dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the
second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the
IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision
is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to
cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However,
sometimes it is misused as in the present case.
30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad (2000)
3 SCC 693 observed as follows:
“12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes
in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main
purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle
572 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of 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
other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may
ponder over their defaults and terminate their 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.”
31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand
(2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful
and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic
realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives 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 complainant are required to be
scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022
filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle
personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family
members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at
hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in
Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in
not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and
thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing
the criminal prosecution against the appellants.
33. We, accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order
of the High Court dated 16.02.2022 in Criminal Petition No.1479 of
2022 filed under Section 482 CrPC. The Criminal Petition No.1479
of 2022 under Section 482 of CrPC shall accordingly stand allowed.
FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 registered with Neredmet Police
Station, Rachakonda under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 573
Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana & Another
and 4 of the Dowry Act against appellant Nos.1 to 6, charge-sheet
dated 03.06.2022 filed in the Court of 1st Metropolitan Magistrate,
Malkajgiri, Cyberabad and the trial pending in the Court of 1st Additional
Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri
against the appellants herein shall accordingly stand quashed.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Quashing"Sign in to search