AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties.
By the present application, filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicants seek quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No. 289/2024 registered with Pinjar Police Station, Dist. Akola initially for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and consequent Charge-sheet No.12/2025 bearing Regular Criminal Case No.45/2025 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barshitakli. It is to be noted here that while filing the Charge-sheet additional Sections 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the IPC were added in the crime.
It is pertinent to note at the outset that the learned counsel for the applicants have not pressed the application of applicant no.1-Samsher Khan Noorulla Khan, the husband of the complainant/non-applicant no.2. Therefore, the contentions with regard applicant nos. 2 to 7 shall be considered in the present application for quashing of the FIR.
The brief facts of the case, as per the FIR, are as under:-
Applicant no.1 is the husband, applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law, applicant no.4 is brother-in-law, applicant nos.5 and 6 are the sisters-in-law and applicant no.7 is the uncle-in-law of the complainant respectively.
ii) The charge-sheet indicates that on 04.09.2024, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Police Station Barshitakli. It is stated that the marriage of applicant no.1 and the complainant was solemnized on 09.06.2019 and after her marriage, she came to co-habit with applicant no.1 at her matrimonial house. It is stated that applicant nos. 1 to 5 and applicant no.6 along with her husband used to live at the complainant’s matrimonial house. All the applicants treated the complainant with dignity and respect for the next two months. Thereafter, the applicants started harassing the complainant physically and mentally on account of bringing inadequate dowry.
iii) The allegations against applicant no.1 is that he asked the complainant to bring an amount of Rs.10 lakhs from her paternal house for purchase of a plot. When the complainant informed him that the condition of her parents is not so good and they cannot afford to pay amount of Rs.10 lakhs, applicant no.1 physically abused the complainant.
iv) It is also alleged that on instigation of applicant no.3, applicant no.1 used to assault the complainant, whereas applicant no.2 used to abuse her on account of bringing inadequate dowry from her paternal house. The allegation against applicant no.4 is that he used to abuse the complainant and on his instigation, applicant no.1 used to assault the complainant. Similar allegations are levelled against applicant nos.5 and 6 as well. There is an allegation against applicant no.7 that he used to threaten the complainant and provoke her in-laws and applicant no.1 to divorce the complainant and used to tell them that he will find another girl and solemnize second marriage of applicant no.1. Therefore, based on the above allegations, complaint came to be registered against the applicants.
The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that there is no specific allegation against applicant nos. 2 to 7 with regard to harassment. Only general and vague allegations are levelled against applicant nos.2 to 7 without any corroborative evidence in this regard. It is contented that there is no material against applicant nos. 2 to 7 except the general and vague statement of the complainant in the FIR. Whereas the statements of witnesses are nothing but a stereo-type/replica of the complaint lodged by the complainant. According to him, the complainant has roped applicant no. 7, who was not even residing in the same house as the complainant. He further submitted that applicant nos.2 to 7 have been roped in the crime merely to harass applicant no.1 and create pressure on him.
Per contra, the learned APP appearing for non-applicant no. 1/State and the learned counsel appearing for non-applicant no.2 submitted that there are material against the applicants in the FIR more particularly against applicant no.1, who used to physically and mentally harass the complainant. According to them, there are specific allegations of demand of dowry of Rs.10 lakhs at the hand of applicant no.1, whereas the other applicants either instigated or supported/repeated the said demand. Therefore, they sought rejection of the application.
Perusal of the entire charge-sheet reveals that the Investigating Officer (IO) has recorded the statement of the father, the mother, the brother, the uncle and other relatives of the complainant. The statement of the parents, the brother and the uncle are replica of each other’s statements. Whereas the statement of other relatives reveal that there was demand of Rs.10 lakhs by the in-laws of the complainant including the husband of the complainant. The FIR depicts that the demand of Rs.10 lakhs as well as the assault were attributed to applicant no.1, the husband of the complainant. The allegations against applicant nos. 2 to 7 are general in nature and the entire charge-sheet nowhere depicts any specific incident alleged against any of applicant nos. 2 to 7.
It is now pertinent to analyze Sections 498A of the IPC so as to reach to a proper conclusion which reads as under:-
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—however, 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.”
The above section states that whoever being in the role of the husband or relative of the husband of a women subjects the women to cruelty shall be punished. Furthermore, cruelty is defined as any willful conduct of such a nature that will lead the women to commit suicide or harm herself (mentally or physically) or such harassment inflicted upon the women seeking to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security or such harassment inflicted on account of failure to meet such demand by the women or person related to her.
In the light of the above contentions and analysis, all the allegations in the present FIR lodged by the complainant are now required to be considered so as to determine the veracity of the allegations. Perusal of the FIR as well as charge-sheet do not reveal any material pertaining to demand of dowry at the hands of the applicant nos. 2 to 7. None of the witnesses including the complainant have made a whisper either in the complaint or in her statement that there is any harassment at the hands of applicant nos.2 to 7 with regards to requiring to meet their unlawful demand for any property or valued security or of abuse on account of failure by her to meet any such demand.
The allegations in the FIR are required to be tested vis-a-vis Clause (a) of Section 498A of the IPC. It has been alleged in the complaint/FIR that after two months into the marriage, the applicant nos.2 to 7 started quarreling, abusing and assaulting the complainant. Perusal of the statement as given in the complaint and by the witnesses with regard to quarrel, abusing and beating does not reveal any detail with regard to quarrel, abuse or assault being inflicted so as to deduce that the willful conduct of applicant nos.2 to 7 is of such nature that could have driven the complainant to commit suicide or has likely caused grievous injury or danger to life, limb or health of the complainant.
Only by way of general and sweeping statement without giving any specific details with regard to the date, time, place or incident, the allegation of quarrel, abuse and assault is presented in one sentence alleging in chorus that applicant nos.2 to 7 used to quarrel, abuse and assault the complainant. Moreover, it is the duty of the prosecution to demonstrate that any willful conduct, on the part of applicant nos. 2 to 7, is of such a nature as is likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grievous injury or danger to her life, limb or health whether mentally or physically. Only general and vague allegations are levelled that applicant nos. 2 to 7 either used to instigate applicant no.1 or used to harass the complainant on account of bringing inadequate dowry without giving any specific details. There is no corroborative material in this regard in the entire charge-sheet. The allegations against applicant nos. 2 to 7 are bereft of specific details. Thus, in light of the above discussion, the allegation does not fall under the purview of Clause (a) of Section 498A of the IPC sofaras applicant nos. 2 to 7 are concerned.
With regard to Clause (b) of Section 498A of the IPC, the allegation is that an amount of Rs.10 lakhs was demanded from her paternal house for purchase of a plot. The allegations of demand of Rs.10 lakhs, abuse and assault are attributed to applicant no.1, the husband of the complainant, whose application is not pressed by the learned counsel for the applicants. These allegations are levelled against applicant no.1 only. There are no allegations that applicant nos.2 to 7 have made any such unlawful demand for property or valuable security at their end. Hence, the case of applicant nos.2 to 7 do not fall within the ambit of Clause (b) of the definition of cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the IPC.
It may be mentioned here that in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @Sonam and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors, [(2022) 6 SCC 599], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC and increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in the matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is held 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. The Apex Court has, therefore, warned the Courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.
Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maram Nirmala and anr. Vs. State of Telangana and anr. [2025 SCC Online SC 2913] has in para nos. 14, 16 and 17 has observed as under:-
“14.The case at hand pertains to allegations of cruelty and dowry demand made by the respondent No. 2 against the appellant(s) herein. A bare perusal of the FIR however, shows that the allegations made by respondent No. 2 are vague and omnibus inasmuch as there is an absence of any specific instance or occasion detailed with particulars wherein the appellant(s) demanded dowry from respondent No. 2 and on refusal of the same, subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. The only allegations levelled by respondent No. 2 against the appellants herein are that subsequent to the birth of her daughter, the conduct of her husband underwent a change, which is stated to have been on account of the alleged inducement exercised by the in-laws including the appellant(s) herein for the purpose of demanding additional dowry and that pursuant to the counselling conducted at the Women Police Station, Nalgonda, although the husband of respondent No. 2 and his family assured that she would be treated properly, they nevertheless continued to subject respondent No. 2 to mental and physical cruelty.
...
16.During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the appellant(s) brought to our notice the judgment of this Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 (“Dara Lakshmi Narayana”) as well as other judgments which squarely apply to this case. We have perused the same.
17.This Court speaking through one of us (B.V. Nagarathna, J.) in Dara Lakshmi Narayana, while dealing with the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings instituted by the respondent wife therein against her husband and in-laws who were charged with offences punishable under Sections 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961, held as follows:
“27.A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.
xxx
30.The inclusion of Section 498-A IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-AIPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-A IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.
xxx
31.We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498-A IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant, husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498-A IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.
xxx
34.We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by Respondent 2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against Appellant 1 and his family members i.e. Appellants 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within Category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426]. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.”
Merely making vague and omnibus statement that applicant nos.2 to 7 asked the complainant to bring money and they in chorus harassed the complainant, mentally and physically without any other corroborating material is not sufficient to initiate criminal proceeding against applicant nos. 2 to 7. There is no other material in the entire charge-sheet, except the said vague and general statements against applicant nos.2 to 7. Sweeping accusations without concrete evidence or particularized allegations, cannot form the basis for a criminal prosecution.
The upshot of the above said discussion is that the allegation of abuse, assault and harassment levelled against applicant nos.2 to 7 are general in nature. Omnibus and vague allegation have been levelled against them without specifying any details and without any corroborative material. All these put together, no ingredients of the offence under Section 498A of the IPC are made out against the applicant nos. 2 to 7. Moreover, other offences registered against the applicants are non-cognizable in nature. Thus, the Police machinery could not have investigated the matter without prior permission from the Competent Magistrate.
A reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], wherein the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR were discussed and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under:—
“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 have given 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.
(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.”
The case of the applicants are covered under Clause (1) and (3) of the decision in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). Therefore, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court to quash the FIR, consequent charge-sheet and proceedings against the applicant nos. 2 to 7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
The application is partly allowed.
ii) The application of applicant no.1-Samsher Khan Noorulla Khan is dismissed as not pressed.
iii) The application of applicant nos. 2 to 7 are hereby allowed.
iv) FIR No. 289/2024 registered with Pinjar Police Station, Dist. Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the IPC and consequent Charge-sheet No.12/2025 bearing Regular Criminal Case No.45/2025 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barshitakli, Dist. Akola are hereby quashed and set aside qua applicant nos. 2 to 7 only.
Rule is made absolute in the above-said terms.