The Supreme Court, in its dismissal of a criminal case initiated by a wife against her husband under Section 498A IPC, has urged the Legislature to consider crucial amendments to Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, before enforcing the new regulations. Emphasizing that the Legislature had not adequately acted upon its recommendations from 14 years prior in the Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand 2010 Criminal Law Journal 4303 case, the Court highlighted the need for a thorough reevaluation of the entire provision (Section 498A IPC). These observations were made in response to a criminal appeal filed by a man challenging the High Court’s decision, which had dismissed his plea and refused to quash the chargesheet under Sections 323, 406, 498A, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said, “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.”
Advocate Yusuf represented the appellant, while Advocates Parveen Kumar Aggarwal and Chritarth Palli stood for the respondents. In this specific instance, the appellant (the husband) and his family members were accused of demanding dowry, which allegedly caused mental and physical anguish to the complainant (the wife). Furthermore, the husband faced allegations of alcoholism, regularly subjecting his wife to physical abuse and cruel treatment, and engaging in an extramarital affair. Consequently, the wife lodged an FIR, resulting in the closure of the case against the other accused following a police investigation, while charges were pressed against the husband. Seeking to halt the criminal proceedings, he appealed to the High Court for dismissal, but his plea was rejected. Subsequently, he sought further recourse by appealing to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case observed, “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 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.”
The committee emphasized that individuals frequently turn to professional assistance in such circumstances, and once a legal expert drafts a complaint, it becomes progressively challenging to identify and rectify any loopholes or deficiencies at a later stage.
“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”, it further added.
The Court declared that employing the police force to pressure the husband into compliance, under the influence of the wife’s parents, relatives, or friends, for the purpose of extracting concessions, is unacceptable. Additionally, in instances where the wife claims mistreatment or harassment, Section 498A of the IPC should not be applied in a mechanical manner.
“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. … 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”, it concluded.
The Court referred to its ruling from 14 years prior in the Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand case, documented in the 2010 Criminal Law Journal 4303 (1). Subsequently, the Court directed the Registry to send a copy of the judgment to both the Union Law Secretary and the Union Home Secretary. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, invalidated the challenged order, and terminated the proceedings.
