Inconsistent Decisions From Different Benches Reduce Litigation To A Punter’s Game: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court set aside an Order of the High Court that quashed proceedings against a husband under Sections 498A, 324, 355, 504, 506 and 149 of the IPC.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Supreme Court
While reviving the criminal proceedings against a husband, the Supreme Court remarked that inconsistent decisions coming out from different Benches shake public trust and reduce litigation to a punter’s game.
The Court set aside an Order of the High Court that had quashed proceedings against a husband under Sections 498A, 324, 355, 504, 506 and 149 of the IPC. The Court stated that the case portrayed a “disturbing picture,” where one Judge refused to quash proceeding against the in-laws observing that the wound certificate demonstrated that the wife was assaulted and suffered simple injuries, while another Judge, by the impugned Order, quashed the proceeding against the husband holding the medical certificate was not consistent with the allegations in the complaint.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held, “Inconsistent decisions coming out from different benches shake public trust and reduce litigation to a punter’s game. It gives rise to various insidious sharp practices like forum shopping spoiling the clear stream of justice. Impugned order suffers from the vice of judicial caprice and arbitrariness and is liable to be set aside also on this score.”
Advocate Rudrali Patil represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Wife alleged that the husband and in-laws (apart from parents-in-law) came in a car to her parental home and threw chilli powder in her eyes, abused her and her relatives in filthy language and assaulted them with slippers and stones.
The other in-laws challenged the proceedings before the High Court. A Single Bench partly allowed the Petition and quashed the proceeding against the parents-in-law but permitted the proceeding to continue against other in-laws. Subsequently, the husband also sought quashing of the proceedings, which was allowed by another single Bench of the High Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held, “Having perused the impugned judgment, we are of the view the judge erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR/Chargesheet. The Judge compared the nature of assault described in the FIR vis-à-vis wound certificate and came to a finding that the allegations are untrue. In doing so, the Judge had undertaken a mini trial to quash the proceeding which is impermissible in law.”
The Bench stated that “this Court has repeatedly forbidden the High Court from embarking on a ‘mini trial’ in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceeding.”
“Applying the ratio to the facts of the case, we have no hesitation to hold the allegation of throwing chilli powder and assault on the appellant by respondent-husband and other in-laws is not only supported by the wound certificate which discloses simple injury but also the statement of the neighbour. Given this situation, it cannot be said the case falls in the category of those cases where there is no legal evidence or evidence is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation levelled in the chargesheet,” the Court remarked.
The Bench also clarified, “Offences involving cruelty on wife would invariably arise out of matrimonial disputes. Accordingly, pendency of matrimonial proceeding between the parties cannot per se lead to an inference that institution of criminal proceeding alleging assault supported by medical evidence and independent witness is a product of malice and abuse of court.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the order dated 16.02.2024 and the proceeding against the respondent-husband are revived and shall continue in accordance with law. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: R v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 596)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Anshuman; Advocates Rudrali Patil, Shaantanu Devansh, Suhas Hosamani, Rushika Patil and Sabeel Ahmed
Respondents: Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli; AOR DL Chidananda; Advocates Abhishek Kanyalur, Suraj Kaushik, Nanda Kumar K B, Akhila Wali and Akash Kukreja