A greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage – SC
D.D-08TH FEBRUARY, 2022
Apex Court observed that in recent times there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.
The Complainant/wife/respondent married to Md. Ikram on 18.09.17. Respondent file a criminal complaint against her husband and the appellants alleging demand for dowry and harassment. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court, concluded that no prima-facie case was made against the in-laws and that the allegations levelled against them were not specific in nature. The said court, however, took cognizance for the offence under section 498A, 323 IPC against the husband Md. Ikram, and issued summons. Dispute was eventually resolved, and wife returned to the matrimonial home.
Later on 01.04.19, Respondent/wife filed another complaint to register FIR under sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 IPC against her husband Md. Ikram and the appellants/ in laws. The complaint alleged that all the accused were pressurizing to purchase a car as dowry and threatened to forcibly terminate her pregnancy if the demands were not met.
Husband and appellant approached Patna High Court to quash FIR dated 01.04.19, which was dismissed and observed that the averments made in the FIR prima-facie disclosed commission of an offence and therefore the matter was required to be investigated by the police. The Appellants niece, Mother in-law, Sister in-law , and brother in law approached Apex Court.
Appellants contended on the ground that the Police Officer was bound to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR as this instant case falls within the categories of cases on which a preliminary enquiry may be made, as mandated by Apex Court.
Further Contended by appellants that previously in the year 2017, the wife instituted a criminal complaint on similar allegations, whereby summons only against the husband and found that the allegations made against the appellants herein were omnibus in nature. Further, it is submitted that the FIR in question has been made with a revengeful intent, merely to harass the Appellant in-laws.
State opposed this appeal on the ground that the husband and appellants have continued their demand for dowry and threatened with forcefully terminating his wife’s pregnancy. An investigation was carried out pursuant to the FIR and the case has been found true against all three accused persons.
While respondent wife oppose appeal on the ground that contends that there was total seven accused while FIR was challenged by only five accused including husband. It is argued that the impugned order is evidently accepted by the accused husband as he has not challenged the impugned High Court judgment. Further Appellant in-laws are equally liable which reflected from the averments made in the FIR and from the oral and documentary evidence collected by the investigating officer.
Apex Court observed 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.
Apex court while go through the facts observed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. No specific and distinct allegations have been made against, 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. 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.
Apex Court further observed that 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.
And held a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. FIR quashed – Appeal Allowed.
KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM & ORS.
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
