S. 498A IPC Not A Panacea For All Matrimonial Ills; It Is Meant To Address Grave Cruelty: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has remarked that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is not a panacea for all matrimonial ills, it is meant to address grave cruelty.

The Court was hearing a Criminal Petition questioning the registration of crime against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 504 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act).

A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “The law does not criminalize incompatibility, nor does it punish imperfect marriages. Section 498A of the IPC is not a panacea for all matrimonial ills. It is a targeted provision meant to address grave cruelty, conduct so wilful and pernicious so as to imperil life, limb or mental health or even harassment tethered to unlawful demands of dowry. This is the purport of the provision - 498A. The complaint quoted supra is conspicuously bereft of such particulars. There is neither an allegation of demand of dowry nor any conduct of such severity as would shock the conscience or satisfy the statutory threshold.”

The Bench said that the judicial precedent speaking in consistent and cautionary voice has underscored that criminal law must not be permitted to degenerate into an instrument of oppression or personal vengeance.

Advocate Syed Khaleel Pasha appeared for the Petitioners, while Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) H. Shanthi Bhushan, Additional State Public Prosecutor (Addl. SPP) B.N. Jagadeesha, and Advocate Naveed Ahmed appeared for the Respondents.

Case Background

The 2nd Respondent was the Complainant-wife of the 1st Petitioner-husband (accused no. 1). Accused No. 2 was the father-in-law of the Complainant, accused no. 3 was the mother-in-law, and accused no. 4 was the brother-in-law. The Complainant and the Petitioner got married in 2017 and the couple then relocated to the United States of America (USA), where the husband was employed. For nearly 6 years, the matrimonial life unfolded overseas, culminating in the birth of a child.

It is only in January 2023 that the Complainant returned to India and thereafter, sought to set the criminal law into motion by registering a complaint for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 read with 34 of the IPC, not only against her husband but also against the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in law. Based on the said complaint, the Police registered a crime for the alleged offences including offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. Being aggrieved by this, the Petitioners-accused persons were before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “The petitioners, 4 in number, stand before this Court seeking shelter from the sweeping arm of criminal law, which according to them, has been set in motion, not by the weight of culpability, but by the frailty of matrimonial discord.”

The Court said that a careful reading of the complaint reveals grievances such as dietary restrictions, expectations regarding attire, allocation of household responsibilities, disagreements over television preferences laced with a statement that the husband treated the Complainant/wife as his servant.

“These allegations even if accepted at face value, portray a portrait of marital discord, but falls woefully short of depicting the statutory cruelty contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC”, it added.

The Court observed that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)/528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) exist precisely to prevent abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

“What is more disquieting is, the indiscriminating roping in of the parents-in-law and brother-in-law, despite their residence in India, while the marital life was largely lived abroad. It is therefore the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments cautions against this very tendency of transforming a matrimonial dispute into a criminal dragnet ensnaring every member of the husband’s family”, it remarked.

The Court was of the view that such prosecutions founded on vague and omnibus allegations or even the complaints so registered on omnibus allegations, do not advance justice, they in fact corrode it.

“The allegations in the case at hand, even at their highest, do not constitute the offence alleged, they are in fact inherently improbable. The continuation of investigation would serve no purpose other than to prolong harassment, stigmatize the petitioners and squander the precious time of criminal Courts. The issuance of a look out circular against the 1st petitioner, on allegations so tenuous, would only compound injustice”, it further noted.

Conclusion

The Court also said that to permit the criminal process to lumber forward would be to allow law to become a weapon rather than a remedy.

“I thus, deem it appropriate to exercise my jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and obliterate the very registration of crime against these petitioners, to prevent it becoming an abuse of the process of the law and resulting in miscarriage of justice”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed the FIR against the accused persons.

Cause Title- Abuzar Ahmed & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. (Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7053 OF 2024)

Click here to read/download the Judgment