(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.
8. Learned counsel further submits that it is alleged by
amount to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A of IPC.
22. 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.
EVV,J
In Abhishek vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2
13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a
petition to quash criminal proceedings launched
against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial
disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin.
Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now
take note of some decisions of particular relevance.
Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State
of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to
deal with a similar situation where the High Court
had refused to quash a FIR registered for various
offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the
foremost issue that required determination was
whether allegations made against the in-laws were
general omnibus allegations which would be liable to
be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions
wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of
Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to
implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial
disputes. This Court observed that false implications
by way of general omnibus allegations made in the
course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked,
would result in misuse of the process of law. On the
facts of that case, it was found that no specific
allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife
and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the
absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would
result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also
noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual
acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused
and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7
SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency to
implicate the husband and all his immediate relations
is also not uncommon in complaints filed under
Section 498A IPC. It was observed that the Courts have
to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with
these complaints and must take pragmatic realities
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083
EVV,J
into consideration while dealing with matrimonial
cases, as allegations of harassment by husband's close
relations, who were living in different cities and never
visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided, would add an entirely different
complexion and such allegations would have to be
scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC
184], this Court observed that the mere mention of
statutory provisions and the language thereof, for
lodging a complaint, is not the 'be all and end all' of
the matter, as what is required to be brought to the
notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence
committed by each and every accused and the role
played by each and every accused in the commission of
that offence. These observations were made in the
context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section
498A IPC.
16. Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court
in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No.
2341 of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023) on the legal
principles applicable apropos Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes
before the High Court, invoking either the inherent
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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.
EVV,J
17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set out, by
way of illustration, the broad categories of cases in
which the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
could be exercised. Para 102 of the decision reads as
follows:
'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 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.
(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
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.
EVV,J
(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 Act concerned
(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 Act concerned, 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.'
19. The most significant aspect to be taken note of
presently is that Bhawna admittedly parted ways with
her matrimonial home and her in-laws in February,
2009, be it voluntarily or otherwise, but she did not
choose to make a complaint against them in relation
to dowry harassment till the year 2013. Surprisingly,
FIR No. 56 dated 09.02.2013 records that the
occurrence of the offence was from 02.07.2007 to
05.02.2013, but no allegations were made by Bhawna
against the appellants after she left her matrimonial
home in February, 2009. Significantly, Bhawna got
married to Nimish on 02.07.2007 at Indore and went
to Mumbai with him on 08.07.2007. Her interaction
with her in-laws thereafter seems to have been only
during festivals and is stated to be about 3 or 4 times.
Sourabh, an architect, was stationed at Delhi since
the year 2007 and no specific allegation was ever
made against him by Bhawna. In fact, she merely
made a general allegation to the effect that he also
tortured her mentally and physically for dowry. No
specific instance was cited by her in that regard or as
to how he subjected her to such harassment from
Delhi. Similarly, Abhishek became a judicial officer 6
or 7 months after her marriage and seems to have had
no occasion to be with Bhawna and Nimish at Mumbai.
EVV,J
His exposure to her was only when she came to visit
her in-laws during festivals. Surprisingly, Bhawna
alleges that at the time of his own marriage, Abhishek
demanded that Bhawna and her parents should
provide him with a car and Rs. 2 lakhs in cash. Why
he would make such a demand for dowry, even if he
was inclined to commit such an illegality, from his
sister-in-law at the time of his own marriage is rather
incongruous and difficult to comprehend. Further, the
fact that Bhawna confessed to making a vicious
complaint against Abhishek to the High Court clearly
shows that her motives were not clean insofar as her
brother-in-law, Abhishek, is concerned, and she clearly
wanted to wreak vengeance against her in-laws. The
allegation levelled by Bhawna against her mother-in-
law, Kusum Lata, with regard to how she taunted her
when she wore a maxi is wholly insufficient to
constitute cruelty in terms of Section 498A IPC.
10. Learned counsel further submits that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the Judgment rendered in K.Subba Rao
v. The State of Telangana, observed that:-
"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against
the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to
matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives
of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of
omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their
involvement in the crime are made out."
Learned counsel further submits that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the Judgment rendered in Geeta
Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, specifically
held that the continuation of proceedings against whom
specific instances of harassment are not alleged in the
EVV,J
charge-sheet or in the statements, would amount to abuse
of process of Law.
11. Learned counsel further submits that the in Preethi
Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and
another, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically
concluded that the implication of the relatives in the
complaint is only meant to harass and to humiliate them
and permitting complainant to pursue such complaint
would be an abuse of process of law. Having said so,
The Apex Court went on to quash the complaint on the
ground that it would be unfair to compel the accused to
undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial
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
EVV,J
necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law.
He further submits that the facts of the present case
are in total consonance with guidelines No. 5 and 7 laid
down in State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal &
Others 3, which read as follows:
"(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person.com ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused...
...(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide andior 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. He further submits that all the facts have been
misrepresented and the allegations that have been made
are fabricated and lacks any corroboration and the
complaint contains mere repetition without any material
evidence collected and the 2nd respondent has implicated
the Petitioner herein with an ulterior motive for wrecking
vengeance on the Petitioner, as such continuation of the
proceedings in C.C.No.2728 of 2021 before the trial Court
is nothing abuse of the process of Law and the same is
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335
EVV,J
liable to be quashed. Therefore, he prayed to quash all
further proceedings against the petitioner/A2 in
C.C.No.2728 of 2021 before the trial Court.
13. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended
that unless and until a full-fledged trial is conducted,
truth cannot be elicited and interference of this Court at
this stage is unwarranted. Therefore, he prayed to
dismiss the Criminal Petition.
14. Learned counsel for 2nd respondent/complainant also
argued in similar lines and sought for dismissal of Criminal
Petition.
15. Having regard to the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties and upon
perusing the material available on record, this Court is of
the opinion that the matter requires adjudication at length.
The trial Court, after conducting a full-fledged trial and
upon examining the oral and documentary evidence
EVV,J
available on record, is directed to pass appropriate orders
as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, this Court is not
inclined to entertain the Criminal Petition at this stage.
16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
However, the appearance of the petitioner/A2 before the
trial Court, is dispensed with for each and every
adjournment unless specifically required by the trial Court.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 07.02.2025.
KRL
