Madhya Pradesh High Court
Himanshu Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 13th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55983 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. HIMANSHU SHARMA S/O SHRI HARENDA
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB MODAL
TOWN, CITY CENTER DISTRICT
GWALIOR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NEERAJ SHARMA W/O SHRI HARENDRA
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE MODAL
TOWN, CITY CENTER DISTRICT
GWALIOR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. HARENDRA SHARMA S/O LATE
SHIVPRASAD SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 56
YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVERNMENT
JOB MODAL TOWN, CITY CENTER
DISTRICT GWALIOR M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. PAVITRA SHARMA D/O SHRI HARENDRA
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT MODAL TOWN,
CITY CENTER DISTRICT GWALIOR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
( SHRI SAMEER KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
INCHARGE POLICE STATION THROUGH
POLICE STATION MAHILA THANA
DISTRICT GWALIOR M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2
2. ANKITA KATARE D/O SHRI MAHESH
KATARE W/O SHRI HIMANSHU SHARMA
BEHIND GROVER HOSPITAL BARADARI
CHOURAHA, MORAR, DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI GIRDHARI SINGH CHAUHAN - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)
SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2)
This application coming on for admission this day, the
court passed the following:
ORDER
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners does not
press the petition on behalf of petitioner No.1-Himanshu Sharma,
who is the husband of the complainant.
Petition is dismissed on behalf of petitioner No.1-Himanshu
Sharma and trial will go on against him.
Petitioner No.2 Neeraj Sharma is the mother-in-law,
petitioner No.3 Harendra Sharma is father-in-law and petitioner
No.4 Pavitra Sharma is sister-in-law of the complainant/respondent
No.2 Ankita Katare.
1. The present petition has been preferred by petitioners under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for
quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR bearing
Crime No.0004/2023 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana,
District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A,
506, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the family members
of the husband have been implicated in the present matter only on
the basis of the omnibus allegations and there are no sufficient
evidence and allegations against the mother-in-law, father-in-law
and sister-in-law to put them on trial. He further submits that the
plain reading of FIR and charge sheet papers indicate that the
allegations leveled against the relatives of the husband are quite
vague, general and no specific instance of criminal conduct has
been stated in the FIR and no material is available in the charge
sheet which may attributed to them. He further submits that the
FIR is lodged after receipt of the notice of the divorce petition
filed by the husband. There was complete silence before the receipt
of the notice and lodging of the FIR is a counter blast. He further
submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case, allegations and evidence collected during investigation there
is nothing on record to continue the criminal trial against the close
relatives of the husband. He relied on the judgment of Apex Court
delivered in the matter of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam vs.
State of Bihar and ors, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein
after considering the various judgments of the Apex Court it is
observed that only on the basis of the general and omnibus
allegations the close relatives of the husband cannot be put to trial.
Paragraph No.17 to 22 of the judgment are relevant and reads as
under:-
"17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse
of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency
of implicating relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes, without analysing the
long term ramifications of a trial on the
complainant as well as the accused. It is further
manifest from the said judgments that false
implication by way of general omnibus
allegations made in the course of matrimonial
dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse
of the process of law. Therefore, this court by
way of its judgments has warned the courts from
proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of
the husband when no prima facie case is made
out against them.
18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a
perusal of the contents of the FIR dated
01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations
are levelled against the Appellants. The
complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed
her mentally and threatened her of terminating
her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and
distinct allegations have been made against
either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the
Appellants have been attributed any specific role
in furtherance of the general allegations made
against them. This simply leads to a situation
wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by
each accused in furtherance of the offence. The
allegations are therefore general and omnibus
and can at best be said to have been made out on
account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband
is concerned, since he has not appealed against
the order of the High court, we have not
examined the veracity of allegations made
against him. However, as far as the Appellants
are concerned, the allegations made against
them being general and omnibus, do not warrant
prosecution.
19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations
of harassment and demand for car as dowry
made in a previous FIR. Respondent No. 1 i.e.,
the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR
pertained to offences committed in the year
2019, after assurance was given by the husband
Md. Ikram before the Ld. Principal Judge
Purnea, to not harass the Respondent wife herein
for dowry, and treat her properly. However,
despite the assurances, all accused continued
their demands and harassment. It is thereby
contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause
of action and therefore the FIR in question
herein dated 01.04.19, is distinct and
independent, and cannot be termed as a
repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17.
20. Here it must be borne in mind that although
the two FIRs may constitute two independent
instances, based on separate transactions, the
present complaint fails to establish specific
allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent
wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of
clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants
would simply result in an abuse of the process of
law.
21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant
circumstances and in the absence of any specific
role attributed to the accused appellants, it would
be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go
through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general
and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a
situation where the relatives of the complainant's
husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been
highlighted by this court in varied instances, that
a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal
also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and
such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.
22. In view of the above facts and discussions,
the impugned order dated 13.11.2019 passed by
the High Court of Patna is set aside. The
impugned F.I.R. No. 248 of 2019 against the
Appellants under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354,
498A read with Section 34 IPC stands quashed."
3. He further relied on the order passed by the coordinate
Bench in the matter of Smt. Nirmala Kunwar and others vs. State
of M.P. and Ors. dated 22.12.2023 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.23104/2022 and the order dated 28.12.2023 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.27229 of 2023 in the matter of Vivek Kumar Mandloi and Ors.
vs. State of M.P. and Anr. He further relied on the judgment
passed by the coordinate Bench in M.Cr.C. No.59499/2022 dated
5.4.2024 (Smt. Varsha Singh and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.),
wherein almost in similar circumstances after relying the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the matter of Kahkashan Kausar
(supra) the coordinate Bench quashed the proceedings against the
close relatives of the husband. He prays for quashment of the
criminal proceedings against the petitioner No.2, 3 and 4.
4. Learned Government Advocate submits that no case of
quashment is made out. Allegations are enough against all the
petitioners and during trial on the basis of the oral and
documentary evidence the allegations can be proved. Therefore, at
this stage, interference by this Court is not warranted. He prays for
dismissal of the petition.
5. Relying on the arguments of the learned Govt. Advocate,
counsel for the respondent No.2 further submits that petitioners
No. 2 to 4 actively participated in the criminal act and all of them
were indulged and involved in causing cruelty and harassment to
the complainant. Specific allegations are there against all the
petitioners, therefore, no case for quashment is made out.
6. After considering the arguments of the learned counsels and
perusal the documents available on record, it appears that the
complainant has lodged the report after receipt of the notice of
divorce petition and in the FIR bald and omnibus allegations have
been leveled against the petitioners No. 2 to 4 and from perusal of
the charge sheet it appears that no credible evidence was collected
by the Investigating Officer to prosecute close relatives of the
husband and in the absence of any specific material no one can be
prosecuted. The statements recorded during investigation are just a
reproduction of the FIR and in the absence of specific allegations
against the petitioners they can't put to trial. It appears that there is
matrimonial dispute between husband and wife and it is an internal
affair of the spouse and the complainant should not be permitted to
rope all the family members for the purpose of creating pressure
upon the husband. In the similar circumstances, Apex Court in the
case of Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2010 (7)
SCC 667 criticized the tendency of implicating all the close
relatives of the husband in the criminal case and quashed the
prosecution against married sister-in-law of the complainant. The
relevant paragraphs of the judgment reads as under:-
"32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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 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.
36. 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."
7. The Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and anr.vs.
State of U.P. And Ors. (2012) 10 SCC 741 has quashed the FIR
lodged against the sister-in-law and brother-in-law and other close
relatives of the husband and the relevant paragraphs of the
judgment reads as under:-
"21. 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 vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. 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:
"12. 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
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.
27. The High Court in our considered opinion appear
to have missed that assuming the trial court had
territorial jurisdiction, it was still left to be decided
whether it was a fit case to send the appellants for trial
when the FIR failed to make out a prima facie case
against them regarding the allegation of inflicting
physical and mental torture to the complainant
demanding dowry from the complainant. Since the
High Court has failed to consider all these aspects, this
Court as already stated hereinbefore, could have
remitted the matter to the High Court to consider
whether a case was made out against the appellants to
proceed against them. But as the contents of the FIR
does not disclose specific allegation against the
brother and sister of the complainant's husband except
casual reference of their names, it would not be just to
direct them to go through protracted procedure by
remanding for consideration of the matter all over
again by the High Court and make the unmarried sister
of the main accused and his elder brother to suffer the
ordeal of a criminal case pending against them
specially when the FIR does not disclose ingredients of
offence under Sections 498A/323/504/506, IPC and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
28. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate
to quash the proceedings initiated against the
appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the
FIR does not disclose any material which could be held
to be constituting any offence against these two
appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that
they were also involved in physical and mental torture
of the complainant-respondent No.2 without
mentioning even a single incident against them as also
the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand
dowry when they are only related as brother and sister
of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash
and set aside the criminal proceedings in so far as
these appellants are concerned and consequently the
order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled.
The appeal accordingly is allowed."
8. Recently, Apex Court in the matter of Achin Gupta vs.
State of Haryana and others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC
759 considered the similar issue involved in the present case held
that lodging of FIR in matrimonial dispute is a serious matter and
permission cannot be granted to abuse the process of law. After
considering various judgment of the Apex Court, the Apex Court
not only quashed the criminal trial but also suggested to the
Legislature to consider the pragmatic realities and make necessary
changes in Section 85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, before both the new provisions come into force as
both the provisions are nothing but verbatim reproduction of
Section 498-A of IPC. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment
reads as under:-
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 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 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 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 v. State of U.P., 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
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 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 making necessary
changes in Sections 85 and 86 respectively of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, before both the new
provisions come into force."
9. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances
and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioners
No. 2 to 4, it would be unjust if the petitioners are forced to go
through the tribulations of a trial on the basis of the general and
omnibus allegations. The petitioners cannot manifest in a situation
where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to
undergo trial. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, FIR
registered as Criminal Case No. 0004 of 2023 at Police Station
Mahila Thana, District Gwalior is quashed qua petitioner No.2
Neeraj Sharma, petitioner No.3 Harendra Sharma and petitioner
No.4 Pavitra Sharma as well as the criminal proceedings arising
out of this FIR is also quashed qua petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part.
11. It is needless to mention that proceedings shall be continued
against the petitioner No.1 Himanshu Sharma.
12. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
van
VANDANA VERMA
2024.05.14
17:13:09 +05'30'
