SC QUASH-Misuse of 498a IPC -Govt to relook provision-relative of husband living separately never visited roped in-exaggerated allegations filed in heat – not bonafide with oblique motive wreck private vendetta- role of bar lawyers to prevent abuse and help in amicable resolution and uphold social fiber peace

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1512    OF 2010

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4684 of 2009)

Preeti Gupta & Another            …Appellants

Versus

State of Jharkhand & Another       ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal  has been  filed by Preeti Gupta the married sister-in-law  and   a   permanent   resident   of  Navasari,   Surat, Gujarat with her husband and Gaurav Poddar,  a permanent resident   of  Goregaon,  Maharashtra,  who   is   the   unmarried brother-in-law of   the  complainant,  Manisha Poddar,  against the  impugned  judgment  of   the High Court  of  Jharkhand at Ranchi,   Jharkhand   dated   27.4.2009   passed   in   Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.304 of 2009.

3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:
The Complainant Manisha was married to Kamal Poddar at Kanpur on 10.12.2006.  Immediately after the marriage, the complainant  who   is   respondent  no.2  in  this  appeal   left   for Mumbai   along   with   her   husband   Kamal   Poddar who was working with the Tata Consultancy Services (for short “TCS”) and was permanently residing at Mumbai.    The complainant also joined the TCS at Mumbai on 23.12.2006.     Respondent no.2  visited Ranchi   to participate   in  “Gangaur”  festival   (an important Hindu festival widely celebrated in Northern India) on 16.3.2007.   After staying there for a week, she returned to Mumbai on 24.03.2007.

4. Respondent  no.2,  Manisha Poddar  filed a complaint  on 08.07.2007 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi under sections 498-A, 406, 341, 323 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against   all   immediate   relations   of   her   husband,   namely, Pyarelal   Poddar   (father-in-law),   Kamal   Poddar   (husband), Sushila   Devi   (mother-in-law),   Gaurav   Poddar   (unmarried brother-in-law)  and Preeti  Gupta @ Preeti  Agrawal   (married sister-in-law).    The complaint was transferred to the court of the Judicial  Magistrate,  Ranchi.    Statements of  Respondent no.2 and other  witnesses were  recorded and on 10.10.2008 the   Judicial   Magistrate   took   cognizance   and   passed   the summoning   order   of   the   appellants.     The   appellants   are aggrieved by the said summoning order.

5. In the criminal complaint, it was alleged that a luxury car was demanded by all the accused named in the complaint.  It was also   alleged   that   respondent   no.2   was   physically assaulted at Mumbai. According to the said allegations of the complainant,   it appears that the alleged  incidents had taken place   either   at   Kanpur   or   Mumbai.     According   to   the averments   of   the   complaint,   except   for   the   demand   of   the luxury car no incident of harassment took place at Ranchi.

6. According   to   the   appellants,   there   was   no   specific allegation   against   both   the   appellants   in   the complaint.Appellant   no.1   had   been   permanently   residing   with   her husband at Navasari,  Surat  (Gujarat)   for the  last more than seven years.  She had never visited Mumbai  during  the year 2007 and never stayed with respondent no.2 or her husband. Similarly,   appellant   no.2,   unmarried   brother-in-law   of   the complainant has also been permanently residing at Goregaon, Maharashtra.

7. It was asserted that there is no specific allegation in the entire complaint against both the appellants.   The statements of prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW4 were also recorded along with   the   statement   of   the   complainant.   None   of   the prosecution   witnesses   had   stated   anything   against   the appellants.    These appellants had very clearly stated  in  this appeal that they had never visited Ranchi.  The appellants also  stated that they had never interfered with the internal affairs of   the   complainant   and her  husband.    According   to   them, there   was   no   question   of   any   interference   because   the appellants had been  living  in different cities  for a number of years.

8. It  was   clearly  alleged by   the  appellants   that   they  had been falsely implicated in this case.  It was further stated that the complaint against the appellants was totally without any basis or foundation.  The appellants also asserted that even if all the allegations incorporated in the complaint were taken to be true, even then no offence could be made out against them.

9. The appellants had submitted that the High Court ought to have quashed this complaint as far as both the appellants are   concerned   because   there   were   no   specific   allegations against   the   appellants   and   they   ought   not   have   been summoned.     In  the   impugned  judgment,  while  declining   to exercise   its   inherent   powers,   the   High   Court   observed   as under:

“In this context, I may again reiterate that the acts relating to demand or subjecting to cruelty, as per the complaint petition, have been committed at the place  where   the   complainant  was   living  with her husband.     However,   the  complainant   in   her statement   made   under   solemn   affirmation   has stated   that   when   she   came   to   Ranchi  on   the occasion of Holi, all the accused persons came and passed   sarcastic   remarks   which   in   absence   of actual  wordings,  according  to  the  learned counsel appearing   for   the   petitioner   could   never   be presumed  to be an act  constituting offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.”

10. In  this appeal,  both  the appellants specifically asserted that they had never visited Ranchi, therefore,  the allegations that they made any sarcastic remarks to the complainant had no basis or foundation as far as the appellants are concerned.

11. The complainant  could not  dispute  that  appellant  no.1 was   a   permanent   resident   living   with   her   husband   at Navasari,  Surat,  Gujarat   for  the  last  more  than seven years and the appellant no.2 was permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharashtra.  They had never spent any time with respondent no.2.

12. According to the appellants, they are not the residents of Ranchi and if they are compelled to attend the Ranchi Court repeatedly   then   that   would   lead   to   insurmountable harassment and inconvenience to the appellants as well as to the complainant.

13. The complaint in this case under section 498-A IPC has led  to   several   other   cases.     It   is  mentioned  that   a  divorce petition has been  filed by  the husband of   respondent  no.2. Both respondent  no.2 and her  husband are highly qualified and   are   working   with   reputed   organization   like   Tata Consultancy   Service.   If   because   of   temperamental incompatibility   they   cannot   live  with  each  other   then   it   is proper   that   they   should   jointly   get   a   decree   of   divorce   by mutual consent.   Both respondent no.2 and her husband are in such age group  that   if  proper  efforts are made,   their   re-settlement may not be impossible.

14. The main question which  falls  for consideration  in  this case is whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the facts and circumstances of this case?

15. This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts’ powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.   Every High Court has inherent power to act  ex debito justitiae  to do real  and substantial   justice,   for  the administration of  which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:

(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

16. Reference   to  the   following   cases  would  reveal   that   the courts have consistently  taken  the view  that   they must  use this extraordinary power  to prevent   injustice and secure  the ends of  justice.    The English courts have also used inherent power to achieve the same objective. It is generally agreed that the  Crown Court  has  inherent  power   to protect   its  process from abuse.  In Connelly v.  Director of Public Prosecutions [1964]   AC   1254,   Lord  Devlin   stated   that  where   particular
criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process, the court is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to trial.    Lord Salmon  in  Director  of  Public  Prosecutions  v. Humphrys  [1977]   AC   1   stressed   the   importance   of   the inherent   power   when   he   observed   that   it   is   only   if   the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court
and is oppressive and vexatious that the judge has the power to intervene.   He further mentioned that the court’s power to prevent such abuse is of great constitutional importance and should be jealously preserved. 

17. The powers possessed by the High Court under section 482 of  the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of  the power requires great caution in its exercise.   The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles.  The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution but court’s failing to use   the  power for advancement   of   justice   can  also   lead  to 9grave injustice.   The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete   and hazy;  more   so,  when  the   evidence  has  not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material.  Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard   to   cases   in which   the  High  Court  will   exercise   its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.

18. This court had occasion to examine the legal position in a large number of cases.  In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, this court summarized some categories of cases where  inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a   legal   bar   against   the   institution   or continuance of the proceedings;

(ii) where   the   allegations   in   the   first information report or complaint taken at their   face   value   and   accepted   in   their entirety   do   not   constitute   the   offence alleged;

(iii) where   the   allegations   constitute   an offence,   but   there   is   no   legal   evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly
or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

19. This court in State of Karnataka v.  L. Muniswamy & Others (1977) 2 SCC 699 observed that the wholesome power under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding  to continue would be an abuse of   the process of the   court   or   that   the   ends   of   justice   require   that   the proceeding ought to be quashed.   The High Courts have been invested   with   inherent   powers,   both   in   civil   and   criminal matters,   to   achieve   a   salutary   public   purpose.   A   court proceeding   ought  not   to  be  permitted   to   degenerate   into   a weapon of harassment or persecution.   In this case, the court observed that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though  justice  must  be  administered according  to  laws made by the legislature.  This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this court and other courts.

20. In Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551, a three-Judge Bench of this court held as under:-

“…..In case the impugned order clearly brings out   a   situation   which   is   an   abuse   of   the process   of   the   court,   or   for   the   purpose   of securing the ends of justice interference by the High   Court   is   absolutely   necessary,   then nothing contained  in Section 397(2)  can  limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court.  Such cases would necessarily be few and far between.  One such case would be the desirability of the quashing of a criminal proceeding initiated illegally, vexatiously or as being without   jurisdiction.    The present  case would   undoubtedly   fall   for   exercise   of   the power  of   the  High Court  in accordance  with Section 482 of the 1973 Code, even assuming, that the invoking of the revisional power of the High Court is impermissible.”

21. This court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others (1988) 1 SCC 692 observed in para 7 as under:

“7. The  legal  position  is well  settled  that  when a prosecution   at   the   initial   stage   is   asked   to   be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether   the   uncontroverted   allegations   as  made prima facie establish the offence.     It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which   appear   in   a   particular   case to   consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution  to continue.  This  is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilized  for any oblique  purpose  and where   in  the  opinion of   the court   chances   of an ultimate   conviction   is   bleak and,   therefore,   no  useful   purpose   is   likely   to   be served   by   allowing a criminal   prosecution   to continue,   the   court   may   while   taking   into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the   proceeding   even   though   it   may   be   at   a preliminary stage.”

22. In State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others 1992   Supp.   (1)   SCC   335,   this   court  in  the backdrop   of interpretation  of   various   relevant  provisions   of   the  Code   of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) 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 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. gave the following categories of  cases by way of   illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.  Thus, this court made it clear that  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 to 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.”

23. In G. Sagar Suri & Another v. State of UP & Others (2000) 2 SCC 636, this court observed that it is the duty and obligation  of   the   criminal   court   to   exercise   a   great  deal   of caution in  issuing the process particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature. 

24. This   court   in Zandu Pharmaceutical  Works  Ltd.  & Others  v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Another  (2005) 1 SCC 122 observed thus:-

“It  would be  an abuse  of  process  of   the   court   to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion   of   justice.   In   exercise   of   the powers,   court   would   be   justified   to   quash   any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it   amounts   to   abuse   of   the   process   of   court   or quashing of these proceedings   would   otherwise serve   the   ends   of   justice.   When   no   offence   is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be   quashed,   it   is   permissible to look  into  the materials   to   assess   what   the   complainant   has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.”

25. A three-Judge Bench  (of  which one of  us,  Bhandari,  J. was the author of the judgment) of this Court in Inder Mohan Goswami  and Another  v.  State of Uttaranchal  & Others (2007) 12 SCC 1 comprehensively examined the legal position. The   court   came   to   a   definite   conclusion   and   the   relevant observations of the court are reproduced in para 24 of the said judgment as under:-

“Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have  to be exercised sparingly,  carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise  is justified by  the  tests specifically  laid down  in  this section  itself. Authority of the court exists  for the advancement of justice.  If any abuse of the process leading to  injustice  is brought  to the notice of  the court, then the Court  would   be   justified   in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.”

26. We have very carefully considered the averments of  the complaint and the statements of all the witnesses recorded at the time of the filing of the complaint.   There are no specific allegations against the appellants in the complaint and none of the witnesses have alleged any role of both the appellants.

27. Admittedly,   appellant  no.1   is   a  permanent   resident   of Navasari,   Surat,   Gujarat   and   has   been   living   with   her husband for more than seven years.  Similarly, appellant no.2 is a permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharasthra.  They have never visited the place where the alleged  incident had taken place.    They had never   lived with  respondent  no.2 and her husband.     Their   implication   in   the   complaint   is  meant   to harass and humiliate the husband’s relatives.   This seems to be the only basis to file this complaint against the appellants. Permitting the complainant to pursue this complaint would be an abuse of the process of law.

28. It   is a matter of  common knowledge that  unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country.  All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases.   This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest   in  the  family  life of  a  large number  of  people of   the society.

29. The   courts   are   receiving   a   large   number   of   cases emanating from section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:-

“498-A.  Husband   or   relative   of   husband   of   a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being he  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.”

30. It  is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial   issues without proper deliberations.    We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive.  At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 

31. The  learned members of   the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in  the   criminal   complaints.    Majority of   the  complaints  are filed   either   on  their   advice   or  with   their   concurrence.   The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must  maintain   its   noble   traditions   and   should   treat   every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of   that  human problem.    They must discharge  their duties  to  the best of   their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact.   The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

32. Unfortunately,  at the time of   filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant   that   such   complaint   can   lead   to insurmountable   harassment,   agony   and   pain   to   the complainant, accused and his close relations.

33.   The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the  innocent.    To  find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency   of   implicating  husband   and   all   his   immediate relations  is   also  not  uncommon. At   times,   even  after   the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth.The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing   with   these   complaints   and   must   take pragmatic realities into consideration  while dealing   with  matrimonial cases.     The   allegations   of   harassment   of   husband’s close relations who had  been  living   in  different   cities   and never visited  or rarely  visited   the   place where the complainant resided  would  have   an   entirely   different   complexion.  The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.  Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal  trials  lead to rancour,  acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties.   It is also a matter  of   common   knowledge   that   in   cases   filed   by   the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable   settlement  altogether.    The  process  of   suffering   is extremely long and painful.   

34. Before parting with  this case,  we would  like  to observe that  a serious relook of   the entire provision  is warranted by the legislation.   It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of   the   incident  are  reflected  in a  large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.

35. The   criminal   trials   lead   to   immense   sufferings   for   all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not 21be able  to wipe out   the deep scars of  suffering of   ignominy. Unfortunately a  large   number  of  these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting  peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the   pragmatic   realities   and  make   suitable   changes   in   the existing  law.   It   is  imperative  for   the  legislature  to  take  into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of   law.    We direct  the Registry to send a copy   of   this   judgment   to   the   Law Commission  and   to   the Union Law Secretary,  Government of  India who may place  it before   the   Hon’ble   Minister   for   Law   &   Justice   to   take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.

36. When   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   are considered  in  the  background of   legal  principles set out in preceding paragraphs,  then it would be unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial.In the interest   of   justice,   we   deem  it   appropriate   to   quash   the complaint against the appellants.   As a result, the impugned judgment  of   the High Court   is set  aside.  Consequently,   this appeal is allowed.

…….……………………..J.     (Dalveer Bhandari)
…….……………………..J.     (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

New Delhi;

August 13,  2010
23