Quashing Of FIR u/s
498a/406/34 ipc: Supreme Court of India
Thought of Judgment. Their implication in the complaint is meant to harass and humiliate the husband’s relatives. This seems to be the only basis to file this complaint against the appellants. Permitting the complainant to pursue this complaint would be an abuse of the process of law.
“It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society”.
Thought of Judgment. Their implication in the complaint is meant to harass and humiliate the husband’s relatives. This seems to be the only basis to file this complaint against the appellants. Permitting the complainant to pursue this complaint would be an abuse of the process of law.
“It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society”.
Supreme Court of India
Bench: G Singhvi, A K
Ganguly
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1512 OF 2010
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4684 of 2009)
Preeti Gupta & Another …Appellants Versus
State of Jharkhand & Another
….Respondents JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed by Preeti
Gupta the married sister-in-law and a permanent resident of Navasari, Surat,
Gujarat with her husband and Gaurav Poddar, a permanent resident of Goregaon,
Maharashtra, who is the unmarried brother-in-law of the complainant, Manisha
Poddar, against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi,
Jharkhand dated 27.4.2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.304 of
2009.
3. Brief facts which are necessary to
dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:
The Complainant Manisha was married to
Kamal Poddar at Kanpur on 10.12.2006. Immediately after the marriage, the
complainant who is respondent no.2 in this appeal left for Mumbai along with
her husband Kamal Poddar who was working with the Tata Consultancy Services
(for short “TCS”) and was permanently residing at Mumbai. The complainant also
joined the TCS at Mumbai on 23.12.2006. Respondent no.2 visited Ranchi to
participate in “Gangaur” festival (an important Hindu festival widely celebrated
in Northern India) on 16.3.2007. After staying there for a week, she returned
to Mumbai on 24.03.2007.
4. Respondent no.2, Manisha Poddar filed a
complaint on 08.07.2007 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi under
sections 498-A, 406, 341, 323 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with
sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all immediate relations
of her husband, namely, Pyarelal Poddar (father-in-law), Kamal Poddar
(husband), Sushila Devi (mother-in-law), Gaurav Poddar (unmarried brother-in-law)
and Preeti Gupta @ Preeti Agrawal (married sister-in-law). The complaint was
transferred to the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. Statements of
Respondent no.2 and other witnesses were recorded and on 10.10.2008 the
Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and passed the summoning order of the
appellants. The appellants are aggrieved by the said summoning order.
5. In the criminal complaint, it was
alleged that a luxury car was demanded by all the accused named in the
complaint. It was also alleged that respondent no.2 was physically assaulted at
Mumbai. According to the said allegations of the complainant, it appears that
the alleged incidents had taken place either at Kanpur or Mumbai. According to
the averments of the complaint, except for the demand of the luxury car no
incident of harassment took place at Ranchi.
6. According to the appellants, there was
no specific allegation against both the appellants in the complaint. Appellant
no.1 had been permanently residing with her husband at Navasari, Surat
(Gujarat) for the last more than seven years. She had never visited Mumbai
during the year 2007 and never stayed with respondent no.2 or her husband.
Similarly, appellant no.2, unmarried brother-in-law of the complainant has also
been permanently residing at Goregaon, Maharashtra.
7. It was asserted that there is no
specific allegation in the entire complaint against both the appellants. The
statements of prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW4 were also recorded along with
the statement of the complainant. None of the prosecution witnesses had stated
anything against the appellants. These appellants had very clearly stated in
this appeal that they had never visited Ranchi. The appellants also stated that
they had never interfered with the internal affairs of the complainant and her
husband. According to them, there was no question of any interference because
the appellants had been living in different cities for a number of years.
8. It was clearly alleged by the appellants
that they had been falsely implicated in this case. It was further stated that
the complaint against the appellants was totally without any basis or
foundation. The appellants also asserted that even if all the allegations
incorporated in the complaint were taken to be true, even then no offense could
be made out against them.
9. The appellants had submitted that the
High Court ought to have quashed this complaint as far as both the appellants
are concerned because there were no specific allegations against the appellants
and they ought not have been summoned. In the impugned judgment, while
declining to exercise its inherent powers, the High Court observed as under:
“In this context, I may again reiterate
that the acts relating to demand or subjecting to cruelty, as per the complaint
petition, have been committed at the place where the complainant was living
with her husband. However, the complainant in her statement made under solemn
affirmation has stated that when she came to Ranchi on the occasion of Holi,
all the accused persons came and passed sarcastic remarks which in absence of
actual wordings, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
could never be presumed to be an act constituting offence under section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code.”
10. In this appeal, both the appellants
specifically asserted that they had never visited Ranchi, therefore, the
allegations that they made any sarcastic remarks to the complainant had no
basis or foundation as far as the appellants are concerned.
11. The complainant could not dispute that
appellant no.1 was a permanent resident living with her husband at Navasari,
Surat, Gujarat for the last more than seven years and the appellant no.2 was
permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharashtra. They had never spent any time with
respondent no.2.
12. According to the appellants, they are
not the residents of Ranchi and if they are compelled to attend the Ranchi
Court repeatedly then that would lead to insurmountable harassment and
inconvenience to the appellants as well as to the complainant.
13. The complaint in this case under
section 498-A IPC has led to several other cases. It is mentioned that a
divorce petition has been filed by the husband of respondent no.2. Both
respondent no.2 and her husband are highly qualified and are working with
reputed organization like Tata Consultancy Service. If because of temperamental
incompatibility they cannot live with each other then it is proper that they
should jointly get a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Both respondent no.2
and her husband are in such age group that if proper efforts are made, their
re- settlement may not be impossible.
14. The main question which falls for
consideration in this case is whether the High Court was justified in not
exercising its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in the facts and circumstances of this case?
15. This court in a number of cases has
laid down the scope and ambit of courts’ powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. Every
High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and
substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to
prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under section 482
Cr.P.C. can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends
of justice.
16. Reference to the following cases would
reveal that the courts have consistently taken the view that they must use this
extraordinary power to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. The
English courts have also used inherent power to achieve the same objective. It
is generally agreed that the Crown Court has inherent power to protect its
process from abuse. In Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC
1254, Lord Devlin stated that where particular criminal proceedings constitute
an abuse of process, the court is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment
to proceed to trial. Lord Salmon in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Humphrys
[1977] AC 1 stressed the importance of the inherent power when he observed that
it is only if the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court
and is oppressive and vexatious that the judge has the power to intervene. He
further mentioned that the court’s power to prevent such abuse is of great
constitutional importance and should be jealously preserved.
17. The powers possessed by the High Court
under section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power
requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that
its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The
inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution but
court’s failing to use the power for advancement of justice can also lead to
grave injustice. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima
facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so,
when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the
issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they
cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of
course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the
High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the
proceedings at any stage.
18. This court had occasion to examine the
legal position in a large number of cases. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, this court
summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be
exercised to quash the proceedings:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there
is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations in the first
information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an
offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly
or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
19. This court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy &
Others (1977) 2 SCC 699 observed that the wholesome power under section 482
Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the
process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding
ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers,
both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A
court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of
harassment or persecution. In this case, the court observed that ends of
justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be
administered according to laws made by the legislature. This case has been
followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this court and other courts.
20. In Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551, a
three-Judge Bench of this court held as under:- “…..In case the impugned order
clearly brings out a situation which is an abuse of the process of the court,
or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High
Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in Section 397(2) can
limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court. Such
cases would necessarily be few and far between. One such case would be the
desirability of the quashing of a criminal proceeding initiated illegally,
vexatiously or as being without jurisdiction. The present case would
undoubtedly fall for exercise of the power of the High Court in accordance with
Section 482 of the 1973 Code, even assuming, that the invoking of the
revisional power of the High Court is impermissible.”
21. This court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao
Scindia & Others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others (1988) 1
SCC 692 observed in para 7 as under:
“7. The legal position is well settled that
when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be
applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made
prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into
consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to
consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a
prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be
utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances
of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely
to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may
while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the
proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.”
22. In State of Haryana & Others v.
Bhajan Lal & Others 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, this court in the backdrop of
interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(for short, Cr.P.C.) 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 of the Constitution of India or the
inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. gave the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. Thus, this court made it clear that 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 to 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.
(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 concerned Act (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 concerned Act, 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.”
23. In G. Sagar Suri & Another v. State
of UP & Others (2000) 2 SCC 636, this court observed that it is the duty
and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in
issuing the process particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature.
24. This court in Zandu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. & Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Another (2005) 1 SCC 122
observed thus:-
“It would be an abuse of process of the
court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion
of justice. In exercise of the powers, court would be justified to quash any
proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of
the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the
ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may
examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is
permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has
alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are
accepted in toto.”
25. A three-Judge Bench (of which one of
us, Bhandari, J. was the author of the judgment) of this Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal
& Others (2007) 12 SCC 1 comprehensively examined the legal
position. The court came to a definite conclusion and the relevant observations
of the court are reproduced in para 24 of the said judgment as under:-
“Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution
and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in
this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of
justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the
notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice
by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.”
26. We have very carefully considered the
averments of the complaint and the statements of all the witnesses recorded at
the time of the filing of the complaint. There are no specific allegations
against the appellants in the complaint and none of the witnesses have alleged
any role of both the appellants.
27. Admittedly, appellant no.1 is a
permanent resident of Navasari, Surat, Gujarat and has been living with her
husband for more than seven years. Similarly, appellant no.2 is a permanent
resident of Goregaon, Maharasthra. They have never visited the place where the
alleged incident had taken place. They had never lived with respondent no.2 and
her husband. Their implication in the complaint is meant to
harass and humiliate the husband’s relatives. This seems to be the only basis
to file this complaint against the appellants. Permitting the complainant to
pursue this complaint would be an abuse of the process of law.
28. It is a matter of common knowledge that
unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All
the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial
cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a
large number of people of the society.
29. The courts are receiving a large number
of cases emanating from section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as
under:-
“498-A. 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 purposes 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
(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.”
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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. 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.
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 & Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger
interest of the society.
36. When the facts and circumstances of the
case are considered in the background of legal principles set out in preceding
paragraphs, then it would be unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the
rigmarole of a criminal trial. In the interest of justice, we deem it
appropriate to quash the complaint against the appellants. As a result, the
impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Consequently, this appeal is
allowed.
……………………………J.
(Dalveer Bhandari)
……………………………J.
(K.S. Radhakrishnan)
New Delhi;
August 13, 2010
www.divorce-lawyers-india.com
Email:
info@divorce-lawyers-india.com
Phone
: +91-11-22022079
No comments:
Post a Comment