Law Web: Should the court discharge the accused in an offence U/S 498A of IPC if the wife has lodged FIR when the husband will perform a second marriage?

Considering the law as has been laid down by the High

Court in number of cases, relying upon the view taken by the

Supreme Court, I find substance in the submission made by

learned counsel for the applicants that in the present case also,

the FIR has been lodged by the non-applicant no.2/wife only to

harass the applicant no.1 and his family members. Her

statement filed along with the charge-sheet clearly reflects that

she approached the police only because applicant no.1 was

going to marry another lady. The allegations made against the

applicants in the report lodged to the police and the statement

given by her were relating to the incidents that occurred almost

two years prior to the date of FIR. She did not disclose as to

why at the relevant point of time, she did not make any

complaint. She has also not disclosed and not stated when she

started living separately from 2016, she did not lodge any

report to the police but only after coming to know about filing

of the suit and fact of marriage of the non-applicant no.2 with

another lady, the complaint/FIR was lodged to the police. It can

be easily presumed that it is nothing but an after-thought and

the allegations made in the FIR are improbable and do not

constitute the offence as alleged against the applicants.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

Criminal Revision No.521/2021

Abhishek Pandey @ Ramji Pandey and others Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order 18/08/2021

Bench Constituted Single Bench

Order delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dwivedi

Law laid down:

FIR lodged under Section 498-A of IPC

and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

after coming to know that husband is

going to marry another lady, alleging

incidents occurred almost two years prior

to the date of lodging the FIR and after

filing suit for seeking decree of divorce

under Section 13-A of Hindu Marriage

Act. The FIR is nothing but an afterthought

and counter-blast to the suit filed

by the husband for seeking decree of

divorce. Charges framed are liable to be

quashed.

Significant Para Nos. 17

1. The applicants have preferred this criminal revision

under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 16.02.2021

passed in SCATR No. 38/2020 by Special Judge, (Atrocities)

Mandla framing charge against the applicant no.1 under

Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act and Sections 3(1) (z), 3(1)(zc) of SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act and against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 under

Section 498-A of IPC, Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

and Sections 3(1) (s), 3(1)(z) and Section 3(1) (zc) of SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. As per the applicants, the court below has not considered

the factual aspects of the matter in consonance with the actual

existing legal position and ignoring the same, framed charges

against the applicants.

3. For deciding the correctness of the order, the important

facts of the case in a nutshell are that on 20.04.2015, the

applicant no.1 entered into marriage with the non-applicant

no.2 at Jagannath Mandir, Jabalpur and out of the said

wedlock, the non-applicant no.2 gave birth to a child on

01.03.2016. The non-applicant no.2 belongs to ‘Gond’

community and after marriage, the applicant no.1 and nonapplicant

no.2 were residing as husband and wife but with

effect from 02.01.2016, the non-applicant no.2 started living

separately as the relations between them were not cordial and

there was some dispute between them. When it became almost

impossible to settle the disputes, the applicant no.1 filed a suit

on 07.05.2019 seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13-A

of Hindu Marriage Act, 1959 at Family Court, Dindori.

4. The notice was issued to the non-applicant no.2 and after

receiving notice and knowing about filing of the divorce

petition, she lodged a complaint to the Police Station, Kotwali,

Mandla District Mandla and after enquiring about the

complaint, the police registered the offence against the accused

persons under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. The offence has also been registered under the

provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants moved an

application before the Court below under Section 227 of

Cr.P.C. for discharging them because the complaint made by

the non-applicant no.2 is nothing but a counter-blast, just to

create pressure upon the applicant no.1 to get his petition of

divorce withdrawn. The said application has been considered

by the court below and rejected vide impugned order dated

16.02.2021 thereby not considering the aspect that a false

complaint has been made by the non-applicant no.2

considering the fact that divorce petition has already been filed

by the applicant no.1.

6. It is also contended by learned counsel for the applicants

that though the complainant originally belonged to ‘Gond’

community, which comes under Scheduled Caste category but

after marriage with the applicant no.1, she did not remain to be

in SC category and as such, cases relating to the offences of

SC/ST Act are not made out against the applicants. The court

below rejected the application mentioning therein that at the

stage of framing of charges, the court has very limited scope of

interference and in view of the material placed by the

prosecution, even if suspicion arises regarding false

implication, the accused cannot be discharged.

7. Shri Ahadullah Usmani, learned counsel appearing for

the applicants criticized the order passed by the Court below

and submits that in view of the existing factual position,

admittedly after living separately from the applicant no1, the

non-applicant no.2 has not made any report to the police and

has also not made any complaint with regard to demand of

dowry nor attributed anything against the applicants that they

have committed any offence relating to SC/ST Act. He submits

that the non-applicant no.2 started living separately with effect

from 02.01.2016 and after almost three years, he filed a suit for

decree of divorce under Section 13-A of Hindu Marriage Act

and till then there was no complaint made by the non-applicant

no.2 but only after receiving the notice, she has made false

complaint. According to learned counsel for the applicants,

there are several judgements of the Supreme Court as well as

the High Court that under such a circumstance, the FIR can be

quashed and accused can be discharged and, therefore, he

submits that the court below has not considered this aspect,

therefore, he is asking that the order of the court below

deserves to be set aside and the applicants be discharged from

the offences registered against them. He has placed reliance

upon a decision reported in (2013)9 SCC 293 Prashant Bharti

Vs. State (NCT of Delhi).

8. Shri Prakash Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the

State has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the

applicants and supported the order passed by the court below,

saying that on the basis of the material available, the court

below has rightly rejected the application under Section 227 of

Cr.P.C.

9. Shri Manoj Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for

the non-applicant no.2, although not disputed the factual aspect

of the matter but supported the submissions made by the State

counsel and also supported the order passed by the court below,

rejecting the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

10. From the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the

parties and the documents available on record, it is clear that

undisputedly, the marriage was solemnized between the parties,

i.e. applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 in the year 2015 and

due to bitterness developed in their relations, they started living

separately with effect from 02.01.2016.

11. On perusal of record, nothing has come to indicate that

from the date of living separately till the date of lodging the

FIR, any complaint has ever been made by the non-applicant

no.2 to any of the authorities or to the police attributing against

the applicants that they have ever demanded any dowry or

created any act which comes under the provisions of SC/ST

Act or any offence was made under Section 3/4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. From the FIR, it is clear that the same was

made on 09.01.2020 whereas the husband/applicant no.1 had

filed a suit for seeking decree of divorce on 07.05.2019 before

the Family Court, Dindori. The notice was issued to the nonapplicant

no.2 and after the same was served upon her, she

filed the complaint.

12. A charge-sheet has been filed by the applicants and from

the statement of the complainant/ non-applicant no.2, it reflects

that at the time of complaint, she had knowledge about filing of

the matrimonial case seeking decree of divorce. It is also clear

from the statement that the non-applicant no.2 after coming to

know that applicant no.1 was going to get married with a lady

namely Bhuvneshwari then only she lodged the report to the

police and made several allegations of dowry and also of

offences relating to the Atrocities Act.

13. The High Court in number of cases has observed that in a

case where complaint is made by the wife against the husband

and his family members only after filing a petition for divorce

then the same is considered to be a counter-blast, just to create

pressure upon the husband so that he may withdraw the case

relating to decree of divorce. It is also observed by the High

Court that if the fact indicates that the wife has not raised any

voice alleging demand of dowry for long and has also not

approached any authority regarding her grievances, but only

after filing a suit by the husband complaint is made by the wife

then the said complaint is considered to be a counter-blast and

prosecution is considered to be an act apparently to harass the

husband and his family members and such a complaint/FIR has

been quashed.

14. In M.Cr.C. No. 8104/2017 (Tarun and Others Vs.

State of M.P. and another), the High Court, considering the

similar aspect has passed an order quashing the FIR whereby

offence under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC

and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were

registered. The High Court relying upon several decisions has

observed as under:-

“7. The parameters on which the indulgence can be shown for

exercising powers available under Section 482 of 'the Code' with

respect to matrimonial matters have been laid down by the Apex Court

in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741 in

the following manner :

“20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the

contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that

there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta

Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual

reference of their names who have been included in

the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of

the family members in a matrimonial dispute

without allegation of active involvement in the

matter would not justify taking cognizance against

them overlooking the fact borne out of experience

that there is a tendency to involve the entire family

members of the household in the domestic quarrel

taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it

happens soon after the wedding.

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: (SCC P.698, para 12).

“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.”

8. In another judicial pronouncement by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Rajagopal v.

Devi Polymers (P) Ltd., (2016) 6 SCC 310, wherein

the Hon’ble Court referred to the earlier decision,

observed in the following manner :-

“In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v.

Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors.,

reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692, this Court observed

as follows:-

“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 utilised for any oblique

purpose and where in the opinion of the

court chances of an ultimate conviction are

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.”

9. In the context of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court, the plain reading of the FIR dated 03/03/2017

filed by the respondent No.2 shows that the allegations

relating to commission of offence punishable under

Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 are vague and bereft of details as

to the place and time of the incident, it also does not

refer to any specific act of the applicants. According to

the contents of F.I.R, the respondent No.2 was

subjected to cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand

of Rs.5.00 lakhs as dowry by the applicants, however, it

is undisputed that the respondent No.2 is living

separately since year 2015 and hence there is no

question of any harassment by the applicants as alleged

by her as the relationship having got a strained, ever

since December 2014. It is pertinent to note that

respondent No.2 has also filed complaint against

applicant no.1 in Mahila Thana, Bhopal and after

conciliation, she agreed to seek divorce from applicant

No.1, therefore, it is difficult to believe that there is still

a demand of dowry on 03/03/2017 coupled with the

criminal intimidation.

10. The applicant No.1 filed a suit of divorce against

respondent No.2/complainant in Family Court, Dhar in

which an exparte divorce decree has been passed vide

order dated 21/03/2017. After receiving the notice of

the aforesaid suit respondent No.2 has filed an

application under Section 12 of Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against applicant

No.1 on 03/03/2017 and on the same day, she also

lodged F.I.R for offence punishable under Section

498A, 506 of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961, against the applicant at police

station Kotwali, District Dhar, which clearly indicates

that as a counter blast of divorce petition filed by the

applicant No.1 against respondent No.2, she has lodged

the aforesaid F.I.R against the applicants.

11. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be

evident that veiled object behind the lame prosecution

is apparently to harass the appellants, therefore, to

secure the ends of justice and for preventing abuse of

the process of criminal Court, it is a fit case in which

the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of

'the Code' may be exercised.

12. Consequently, the application filed by the

applicants, under Section 482 of 'the Code' is hereby

allowed and the First Information Report bearing crime

No.116/2017, registered at Police Station-Kotwali,

Dhar, against the applicants for offences under Section

498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3

& 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as also the chargesheet

and all the consequential proceedings flowing out

of the said F.I.R stands quashed.”

15. Further, in case of Rohit Vs. State of M.P. reported in

2019 (III) MPWN 25, considering the similar facts as has been

involved in the present case, the High Court has observed as

under:-

“9. The first contention which appears to be

preliminary in nature is that the documents which are

brought on record regarding the complaint made by the

applicant No. 1 to the Superintdent of Police, Ratlam

and filing of application under Section 9 of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights are

the defence documents and there is prohibition in

considering such documents in order to decide the

application of the instant nature. This contention can be

best answered by relying on the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Rukmini Narvekar v.

Vijaya Satardekar, (2008) 14 SCC 1, has held as under:

"21. We should also keep in mind that it is well

settled that a judgment of the Court has not to be

treated as Euclid's formula [vide Rajbir Singh

Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University

[(2008) 9 SCC 284 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 887 :

JT (2008) 8 SC 621] ]. As observed by this Court

in Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. N.R.

Vairamani (2004) 8 SCC 579 : AIR 2004 SC

4778, observations of courts are neither to be

read as Euclid's formula nor as provisions of the

statute.

22. Thus, in our opinion, while it is true that

ordinarily defence material cannot be looked into

by the court while framing of the charge in view

of D.N. Padhi case [(2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005

SCC (Cri) 415] , there may be some very rare and

exceptional cases where some defence material

when shown to the trial court would convincingly

demonstrate that the prosecution version is totally

absurd or preposterous, and in such very rare

cases the defence material can be looked into by

the court at the time of framing of the charges or

taking cognizance. In our opinion, therefore, it

cannot be said as an absolute proposition that

under no circumstances can the court look into

the material produced by the defence at the time

of framing of the charges, though this should be

done in very rare cases i.e. where the defence

produces some material which convincingly

demonstrates that the whole prosecution case is

totally absurd or totally concocted.

38. In my view, therefore, there is no scope for

the accused to produce any evidence in support

of the submissions made on his behalf at the

stage of framing of charge and only such

materials as are indicated in Section 227 CrPC

can be taken into consideration by the learned

Magistrate at that stage. However, in a

proceeding taken therefrom under Section 482

CrPC the court is free to consider material that

may be produced on behalf of the accused to

arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed

could be maintained. This, in my view, appears to

be the intention of the legislature in wording

Sections 227 and 228 the way in which they have

been worded and as explained in Debendra Nath

Padhi case (2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri)

415 by the larger Bench therein to which the very

same question had been referred."

10. The reproduced extracts of the said judgment

clearly demonstrate that there is no prohibition in

considering even the defence material while exercising

the power under Section 482 of CrPC. Consequently,

the first contention of the respondent about

nonconsideration of the defence material is repealed.

11. The next contention which touches on the merits of

the case is that the Court cannot consider the

background or the circumstances under which the

complaint has been lodged as it is only required to

pursue the contents of the complaint lodged by the

respondent No.2 and the statements recorded by the

police under Section 161 of CrPC and if these materials

make out the ingredient of offence charged against the

applicants, there is no scope for showing any

indulgence. In this context of said contention, it will be

worthwhile to quote the following observation made by

the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Rajagopal v.

Devi Polymers (P) Ltd., (2016) 6 SCC 310:-

"15. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v.

Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [Madhavrao

Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao

Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri)

234] , this Court observed as follows: (SCC p.

695, para 7)

"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 utilised for any oblique purpose and

where in the opinion of the court chances of

an ultimate conviction are 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."

12. The consideration of the reproduced portion clearly

indicates that it is open to the Court to enquire into the

circumstances and the context in which the complaint

has been lodged because it is not expedient in the

interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue

when the same has been filed with oblique motive or to

settle the personal score.

13. From perusal of the complaint, it appears that there

is no specific averments regarding the date or the

occasion or any specific wording that they made for

demanding dowry. The marriage was taken place only

one and half year before the complaint. Earlier no

complaint was made to any authority regarding demand

of dowry and harasment. According to the allegation

made in the complaint that on 29.08.2017 in presence

of the father and maternal uncle of the respondent

No.2, the applicants made demand of dowry and

thrown out her from the matrimonial house but

complainant did not lodged any compliant immediately

after the said incident to the police. The present

complaint has been made after near about 3 months of

the last incident and no explanation has been disclosed

about the delay in lodging the FIR. These circumstance

prima facie raised doubt about the probability of

truthfullness of the allegations made by the respondent

No.2 against the applicants.

14. From the documents filed by the applicants, it

reveals that applicant No. 1 has given notice to the

respondent No.2 on 20.11.2017 regarding restitution of

conjugal rights and thereafter the respondent No.2

lodged FIR against the applicants at Police Station-

Mahila Thana on 26.11.2017, which indicates that the

respondent No.2 lodged the FIR against the applicants

for demand of dowry and harassment to defeat the

proceedings initiated by the applicant No.1 for

restitution of conjugal rights.

15. From the reasons stated hereinabove, this court is

of the view that there are no sufficient material on

record to form an opinion that there is ground for

presuming that the appellants/accused persons have

committed the offence under the charged sections. The

learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Sessions

Judge missed these crucial points while framing the

charge and considering the revision application filed by

the applicants under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. the veiled

object behind the lame prosecution is apparently to

harass the applicants, therefore, the impugned

prosecution is wholly unfounded.

16. Therefore, present petitions under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. are hereby allowed and the proceedings drawn

against the applicants in furtherance to the FIR bearing

crime No.18/2017 for the commission of offence

punishable under Section 498-A, 323/34 of I.P.C.

registered at police Station-Mahila Thana, Ratlam and

the consequential proceedings pending before the court

of Judicial Magistrate First, Class, Ratlam in criminal

case No.2215/2017 are hereby quashed.”

16. Further, in case of Sanjay Sthapak & 4 others Vs. State

of M.P. and another passed in M.Cr.C. No. 10044/2010, the

High Court has also dealt with a situation as is involved in the

present case and also analysed the misuse of provisions of

Section 498-A of IPC and also discussed the factual aspect that

the complaint is made by the wife only after filing of suit by

the husband for seeking decree of divorce and there is no

corroborative material available then it is considered that the

action by the wife is nothing but a counter-blast and as such,

allegations made in the FIR are found absurd and improbable

and also quashed the FIR. The High Court in the said case has

observed as under:-

“5. Having considered the contentions of learned

counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is

found that in the FIR there is no specific allegation

with regard to the demand of the dowry and

harassment and only omnibus statement have been

made against all accused persons and when the matter

was placed before the District Level Pariwar

Paramarsh Kendra, Khandwa the statements of

respondent no.2, and her brother Akash and mother

Smt. Lata were recorded on 28th September, 2018 in

which there is no whisper of demand of dowry and

harassment on account of non fullfilment of the

aforesaid demand and the dispute was related to nonadjustment

or non-cooperative attitude of the

respondent no.2, which is not unusual. It also appears

that on behalf of the applicant no.1 divorce petition

was filed before the Family Court, Khandwa on

19/09/2018 and notice was served before 25th

October, 2018 and thereafter on 28/10/2018, the FIR

was lodged, this fact reflects that it is counter blast of

the action taken by the applicant no.1. Apart from it,

the allegation in the FIR are so absurd and inherently

improbable, on the basis of which no prudent man can

ever reach to the just conclusion that there is just

reasonable ground for proceeding further against the

applicants.

6. There is no dispute about the legal preposition that

the truthfulness of the facts mentioned in the FIR and

the charge sheet can’t be adjudicated at this stage but if

the avernment is omnibus and not sufficient and not

probable and do not prima facie constitute any offence

and the proceeding is started to achieve the ulterior

motive for wreaking vengeance, as counter blast the

same can’t continue and this Court under section 482 of

the Cr.P.C is duty bound to set aside such proceeding.

7. The Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the

case of Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of

Uttaranchal (2007)12 SCC 1 has observed in para 24

of the said judgment, which is as under:-

"24. 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."

8. Now days it is general tendency to implicate in-laws

by the wife in case of demand of dowry just to take

revenge on account of bitterness emerged on account of

nonadjustment in the materimonial house. The

provision of section 498A of the IPC is not for that

purpose. The Apex Court in Bhaskar Lal Sharma &

another vs. Monica [(2009) 10 SCC 604] in which the

Apex Court considering the judgment of the Apex

Court in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India

[(2005) 6 SCC 281] it is held that :-

“10. The object for which Section 498-A IPC was

introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of

Objects and Reasons while enacting the Criminal

Law (Second Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. As clearly

stated therein the increase in the number of dowry

deaths is a matter of serious concern. The extent of

the evil has been commented upon by the Joint

Committee of the Houses to examine the work of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In some cases, cruelty

of the husband and the relatives of the husband which

culminate in suicide by or murder of the helpless

woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction

involving such cruelty. Therefore, it was proposed to

amend IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(in short ‘CrPC’) and the Evidence Act suitably to

deal effectively not only with cases of dowry deaths

but also cases of cruelty to married women by the

husband, in-laws and relatives. The avowed object is

to combat the menace of dowry death and cruelty.

…............

19. The object of the provision is prevention of the

dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by

the petitioner many instances have come to light

where the complaints are not bona fide and have been

filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of

the accused does not in all cases wipe out the

ignominy suffered during and prior to trial.

Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the

misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial

measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the wellintentioned

provision. Merely because the provision

is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a

licence to unscrupulous persons to wreak personal

vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore,

become necessary for the legislature to find out ways

how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations

can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the courts

have to take care of the situation within the existing

framework. As noted above the object is to strike at

the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the

provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The

provision is intended to be used as a shield and not as

an assassin's weapon. If the cry of ‘wolf’ is made too

often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be

available when the actual ‘wolf’ appears. There is no

question of the investigating agency and courts

casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot

follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating

to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost

sight of that the ultimate objective of every legal

system is to arrive at the truth, punish the guilty and

protect the innocent. There is no scope for any

preconceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued

by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and

the courts start with the presumptions that the

accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is

speaking the truth. This is too wide and generalised a

statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn

which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the

role of the investigating agencies and the courts is

that of a watchdog and not of a bloodhound. It should

be their effort to see that an innocent person is not

made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and

malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that

in many cases no direct evidence is available and the

courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While

dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to

circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.”

9. The Apex Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of

Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667] held that:-

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 is also a matter of serious concern.

10. The Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another

vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2012)10 SCC 741] held

that :-

20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the

contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent

that there are no allegations against Kumari

Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except

casual reference of their names which have been

included in the FIR but mere casual reference of

the names of the family members in a

matrimonial dispute without allegation of active

involvement in the matter would not justify

taking cognizance against them overlooking the

fact borne out of experience that there is a

tendency to involve the entire family members

of the household in the domestic quarrel taking

place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it

happens soon after the wedding.

11. Hon'ble the Apex court in the recent judgment,

Rajesh Sharma and ors. vs. State of U.P. And anr.,

passed in criminal appeal no. 1265/2017 dated

27.7.2017 as observed in para 14, as under :-

“14. €Section 498-A was inserted in the statute

with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at

the hands of husband or his relatives against a

wife particularly when such cruelty had potential

to result in suicide or murder of a woman as

mentioned in the statement of Objects and

Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression

“cruelty” in Section 498A covers conduct which

may drive the women to commit suicide or cause

grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life

or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet

unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious

concern that large number of cases continue to be

filed under already referred to some of the

statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This

Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of

such complaints are filed in the heat of the

moment over trivial issues. Many of such

complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing

of the complaint, implications and consequences

are not visualized. At times such complaints lead

to uncalled for harassment not only to the

accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for

arrest may ruin the chances of settlement”.

12. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law and in

the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of this

Court, the instant petition deserves to be allowed as in

the aforesaid circumstances if the proceedings

continued against the applicants, it would amount to

abuse of the process of the court and would cause grave

injustice to the applicants. In the circumstances, this

petition is allowed and the proceedings of the Criminal

Case No. 389/2018 pending before the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Punasa, District Khandwa is

hereby quashed.”

17. Considering the law as has been laid down by the High