Petty Quarrels Do Not Amount To Cruelty U/S 498A IPC: Bombay HC Quashes Case Against Elderly Couple ; Criticizes Investigating Officer
The Bombay High Court quashed a criminal case against an elderly couple saying that petty quarrels do not amount to cruelty.
The court also criticized Investigating Officer (IO) for its high-handed action.
In this case, the petitioners i.e., parents-in-law of a woman, aged 80 and 75 years respectively, had filed a petition to quash the FIR for offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 406, 323, 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anuja Prabhudessai and Justice N.R. Borkar held, “The term ‘cruelty’ for the purpose of Section 498-A of the IPC has been specifically defined. In order to constitute an offence under Section 498-A there must be prima facie material to prove (a)willful conduct 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 of the woman; (b) that they had harassed her with a view to coerce her to satisfy unlawful demand of dowry. It is well settled that to prove offence under Section 498-A, it has to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously or persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels do not amount to cruelty.”
The Bench further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam (2009) 13 SCC 330.
Advocate Shubhada Khot represented the petitioner while APP M.M. Deshmukh and Advocate Gayatri Gokhale represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The respondent no. 2 (wife) and husband i.e., adopted son of the petitioners were school friends and their friendship turned into love. They decided to enter into matrimonial ties but the respondent no. 2’s father did not approve the same. However, later he relented as his wife supported the decision of their daughter. The respondent claimed that during her stay in the matrimonial home, the petitioner no. 2 (mother-in-law) would taunt and harass her over trivial issues. She did not allow her to touch the refrigerator and gave her leftover food. It was also alleged that the petitioner no. 1 (father-in-law) would look at her with a smirk on his face.
Several allegations were levelled by the respondent against her husband and the petitioner. She alleged that her husband would constantly quarrel with her subject her to mental and physical cruelty during her stay in Dubai. The petitioners, therefore, filed the petition to quash the FIR on the ground that the said allegations did not disclose any offence against them. They claimed that in course of the investigation, IO resorted to seal their lockers and freeze all their bank accounts/FDs.
The High Court in view of the above facts observed, “It is also pertinent to note that this Court by order dated 22.01.2021 had directed the Investigating agency not to file the chargesheet qua the petitioners without leave of the the Court. Despite the said order, the Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet on 11.11.2022 without there being any material to show their involvement in the said crime. Suffice to say that the role of the Investigating Officer is not to favour or disfavour any person, but to unravel the truth in exercise of powers and procedure stipulated in Chapter XII of Cr.P.C.”
The Court said that the Investigating Officer is not required to go into the truthfulness or genuineness of the allegations in the FIR or the other material collected in course of the investigation, yet, he does not have unfettered discretion to brand an innocent person as an accused, to file chargesheet and send him for trial, unless uncontroverted allegations and material collected in course of the investigation raise a suspicion that the person is involved in commission of a cognizable offence.
“In the absence of such prima facie material, compelling an innocent person to approach the Court for discharge, quashing or to go through a trial and thereby subjecting him to mental trauma, humiliation, stigmatization and loss of reputation would imperil his personal liberty, which is sacred and sacrosanct . Hence, the investigation which is said to be the backbone of criminal justice system, should at all time be fair, proper and in accordance with constitutional guarantees and legal provisions”, noted the Court.
The Court also noted that the Supreme Court has time and again emphasized that right to a fair investigation is a facet of a fair trial guaranteed to every accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. It added that despite there being no prima facie material to show the involvement of the petitioners in commission of any cognizable offence, they have been dragged in a matrimonial dispute, justifying their grievance that their implication was for ulterior motive.
“… freezing of the bank accounts was manifestly arbitrary and against the mandate of law. By such drastic and high handed action, the Investigating Officer compelled the petitioner to beg and borrow money from their relatives for their survival and sustenance, striking at the very right to live with human dignity”, said the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the case against the petitioners.
Cause Title- Ramesh Sitaldas Dalal & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:BHC-AS:34459-DB)
