AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vimal K. Vyas, J
Draft amendment is allowed. Learned advocate for the applicants shall carry out amendment forthwith.
RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no. 1 – State and learned advocate Ms. Avani Patel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 – original complainant.
The present application qua the applicant No.1 - husband was not pressed qua and the same was disposed of accordingly vide order dated 09.11.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.
By way of preferring the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants-accused, who are in-laws of the complainant – Respondent No.2, seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the First Information Report No.11217001220010 of 2022 lodged before the Mahila Police Station, District Patan, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), 294(b), 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3, 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Heard learned advocate Mr. Jucky Lucky Chan appearing for the applicants-accused, learned advocate Ms. Avani Patel appearing for the respondent no.2 – original complainant and learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta appearing for the respondent no.1 – State.
Learned advocate Mr. Chan appearing for the present applicants-accused has submitted that the FIR lodged by the victim/complainant is palpably false. There is not an iota of evidence to implicate the present applicants-accused herein with the alleged offence. He has further submitted that the victim/complainant has made general allegations against the applicants-accused, and no specific role has been attributed to the present applicants-accused. The impugned FIR, even if it is taken at its face value, could not even establish the offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned advocate Mr. Chan has, therefore, urged that considering the above, the present application may be allowed and the impugned FIR may be quashed and set-aside qua the present applicants-accused.
Learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently opposed the present application and has submitted that having regard to the gravamen and seriousness of the offence committed by the present applicants-accused, the present application may not be entertained and the same may be rejected.
Learned advocate Ms. Avani Patel appearing for the victim/complainant, while strongly opposing the present application, has adopted the arguments canvassed by the learned APP for the respondent – State and has submitted that the present application may not be entertained and the same may be rejected.
It appears that initially the matter was settled between the parties, however, as per the submissions of learned advocate appearing for the complainant, since the husband had again started harassing the complainant, she had to file the complaint on 11.10.2022. On plain reading of the FIR, it appears that the present complaint seems to have been filed by the complainant to exert pressure on the applicants-accused as no settlement was arrived at regarding the matrimonial dispute between the complainant and her husband. It further appears from the FIR that the allegations made by the complainant in the FIR are general in nature and no specific role has been attributed to any of the applicants-accused.
Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the arguments canvassed by them as well as taking into consideration the averments made in the application, this Court is of the opinion that there is hardly any likelihood of the applicants-accused being convicted on the face of such FIR. Thus, it appears from the aforesaid that sending the applicants-accused to face the trial would be nothing but a futile exercise and would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires consideration. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set-aside in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This Court has also gone through the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Shobhit Kumar Mittal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in 2025 INSC 1152, wherein the Supreme Court has, in paragraphs-22 and 23, observed thus :
“22. Furthermore, at this juncture, we find it appropriate to quote the observations of this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Bihar, (2025) 3 SCC 735 wherein it was observed:
“27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. We say so for the reason that while the complainant/respondent No.2 has made vague and omnibus allegations against the accused/appellant herein, she has failed to justify the same before this Court. Such actions would create significant divisions and distrust among people, while also placing an unnecessary strain on the judicial system, particularly criminal courts.
The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise Page 22 of 26 in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.
We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.”
In the aforementioned facts of the case and keeping the judicial dicta rendered by this Court in mind, we find that the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 of the High Court ought to be set aside and is set aside. Consequently, FIR No.347 of 2023 dated 09.11.2023 lodged at Police Station Civil Lines, Meerut and all consequent proceedings initiated pursuant thereto stand quashed, only qua the accused/appellant herein.”
In the result, the application is allowed. The First Information Report No.11217001220010 lodged before the Mahila Police Station, District Patan, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), 294(b), 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3, 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby ordered to be quashed and set-aside qua the present accused-applicants Nos. 2 to 6. All other consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto are also quashed and set-aside.
Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.