Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Supreme Court
Growing Tendency To Append Every Relative Of Husband Casts Serious Doubt: Supreme Court Acquits Accused In S. 498A IPC Case
|The Supreme Court remarked that in order to meet the threshold of the offences under Section 498A IPC & Sections 3 & 4 of the DP Act, 1961, the allegations cannot be ambiguous or made in thin air.
The Supreme Court has acquitted an accused in a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) saying that the growing tendency to append every relative of the husband casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations made by the wife.
The Court was dealing with Criminal Appeals filed by a man against the Order of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld his conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act).
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held, “Notwithstanding the merits of the case, we are distressed with the manner, the offences under Section 498A IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 are being maliciously roped in by Complainant wives, insofar as aged parents, distant relatives, married sisters living separately, are arrayed as accused, in matrimonial matters. This growing tendency to append every relative of the husband, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations made by the Complainant wife or her family members, and vitiates the very objective of a protective legislation.”
The Bench remarked that in order to meet the threshold of the offences under Section 498A IPC & Sections 3 & 4 of the DP Act, 1961, the allegations cannot be ambiguous or made in thin air.
AOR Preetika Dwivedi appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Accused while AOR Shaurya Sahay appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.
Brief Facts
A case was filed by the Complainant-wife against the Appellant-husband and her in-laws alleging mental and physical torture for not bringing enough dowry. The marriage between the parties had taken place in 1997. The wife was working as a teacher prior to her marriage and she had allegedly resigned from her job on the husband’s advice. It was alleged that the husband, in-laws, and brother-in-law were constantly unhappy and dissatisfied and subjected her to constant taunts, physical and mental atrocities. She further alleged that the husband and in-laws forced her to consume milk mixed with some narcotic/alcoholic substances and forced to attend parties with his friends.
It was also alleged that the in-laws in conspiracy with the husband planned to kill her. Consequently, an FIR was registered against the Appellant and his family. The Magistrate acquitted the Appellant for the offences under Section 323 read with 34 and Section 506 IPC and convicted him for the offences under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act. His conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge and being aggrieved, he filed a Revision before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the same and upheld his conviction. Resultantly, he approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “The Trial Court has indeed applied its judicial mind to the material on record whilst acquitting the Appellant and the co accused parents-in-law for offences under Section 323 r/w 34 & Section 506 IPC. However, it appears that the Trial Court had passed the order of conviction of the Appellant under Section 498A IPC & Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, merely on the possibility that the allegations and the depositions of the PW-1 corroborated by PW2, are true and correct.”
The Court said that, although one cannot deny the emotional or mental torture that the Complainant may have undergone in the marriage, however a cursory or plausible view cannot be conclusive proof to determine the guilt of an individual under Section 498A & Section 4 of the DP Act, especially to obviate malicious criminal prosecution of family members in matrimonial disputes.
“In this respect, we also cannot ignore that the FIR dt. 20.12.1999 was registered after the Appellant had filed the Divorce Petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 06.02.1999. In consideration thereof and that the Complainant had cohabited with the Appellant only for a period of about a year, it appears that the FIR registered by the Complainant was not genuine”, it added.
The Court was of the view that the High Court was well within its revisionary powers to discern whether an FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom were sustainable.
“In all certainty, it could have saved 6 years’ worth of time for the Appellant, who has endured litigation for over 20 years as of today”, it further noted.
The Court emphasised that the term ‘cruelty’ is subject to rather cruel misuse by the parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific instances.
“The tendency of roping these sections, without mentioning any specific dates, time or incident, weakens the case of the prosecutions, and casts serious suspicion on the viability of the version of a Complainant. We cannot ignore the missing specifics in a criminal complaint, which is the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State”, it also remarked.
The Court concluded that the marriage of the Appellant has already been dissolved and the divorce decree has attained finality, hence any further prosecution will only tantamount to an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the impugned Order, and acquitted the husband.
Cause Title- ABC v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 671)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Preetika Dwivedi
Respondent: AOR Shaurya Sahay, Advocates Aditya Kumar, and Ruchil Raj.