2023 (8) TMI 1586 - SC - Indian Laws

Dowry harassment - Jurisdiction - power of High Court to quash the FIR and chargesheet under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - offense under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act - misuse of the legal process by the complainant in implicating the appellants - HELD THAT - The most significant aspect to be taken note of presently is that Bhawna admittedly parted ways with her matrimonial home and her in-laws in February, 2009, be it voluntarily or otherwise, but she did not choose to make a complaint against them in relation to dowry harassment till the year 2013. Surprisingly, FIR No. 56 dated 09.02.2013 records that the occurrence of the offence was from 02.07.2007 to 05.02.2013, but no allegations were made by Bhawna against the Appellants after she left her matrimonial home in February, 2009. Significantly, Bhawna got married to Nimish on 02.07.2007 at Indore and went to Mumbai with him on 08.07.2007. Her interaction with her in-laws thereafter seems to have been only during festivals and is stated to be about 3 or 4 times - No specific instance was cited by her in that regard or as to how he subjected her to such harassment from Delhi. Similarly, Abhishek became a judicial officer 6 or 7 months after her marriage and seems to have had no occasion to be with Bhawna and Nimish at Mumbai. His exposure to her was only when she came to visit her in-laws during festivals. Surprisingly, Bhawna alleges that at the time of his own marriage, Abhishek demanded that Bhawna and her parents should provide him with a car and Rs. 2 lakhs in cash. The fact that Bhawna confessed to making a vicious complaint against Abhishek to the High Court clearly shows that her motives were not clean insofar as her brother-in-law, Abhishek, is concerned, and she clearly wanted to wreak vengeance against her in-laws. The allegation levelled by Bhawna against her mother-in-law, Kusum Lata, with regard to how she taunted her when she wore a maxi is wholly insufficient to constitute cruelty in terms of Section 498A Indian Penal Code. Bhawna herself claimed that Nimish came to her brother's wedding in 2012, but she has no details to offer with regard to any harassment for dowry being meted out to her by her mother-in-law and her brothers-in-law after 2009 - even for that period also, her allegations are mostly general and omnibus in nature, without any specific details as to how and when her brothers-in-law and mother-in-law, who lived in different cities altogether, subjected her to harassment for dowry. Most damaging to Bhawna's case is the fact that she did nothing whatsoever after leaving her matrimonial home in February, 2009, and filed a complaint in the year 2013 alleging dowry harassment, just before her husband instituted divorce proceedings. Bhawna's allegations against the Appellants, such as they are, are wholly insufficient and, prima facie, do not make out a case against them. Further, they are so farfetched and improbable that no prudent person can conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against them. In effect, the case on hand falls squarely in categories (1) and (5) set out in Bhajan Lal. Permitting the criminal process to go on against the Appellants in such a situation would, therefore, result in clear and patent injustice. This was a fit case for the High Court to exercise its inherent power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the High Court had the power to quash the FIR and chargesheet under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Whether the allegations against the appellants were sufficient to constitute an offense under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Whether there was misuse of the legal process by the complainant in implicating the appellants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Power of the High Court to Quash FIR and Chargesheet:

The judgment emphasizes that the High Court retains the power to quash an FIR even after a chargesheet is filed. This principle is supported by precedents such as Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat and Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi). The judgment reiterates that the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. The court highlighted that the power should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases where the allegations do not disclose any offense or are manifestly frivolous or vexatious.

2. Sufficiency of Allegations to Constitute Offense:

The court scrutinized the allegations made by the complainant, Bhawna, against her in-laws under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The judgment noted that Bhawna's allegations were general and omnibus, lacking specific instances of harassment or cruelty. The court found inconsistencies in Bhawna's statements, particularly regarding her stridhan jewellery and her delayed complaint, which was filed years after she left her matrimonial home. The allegations were deemed insufficient to constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC, as they were vague and improbable. The court emphasized that the allegations did not meet the threshold for proceeding with criminal charges, falling into categories (1) and (5) of the Bhajan Lal guidelines, which justify quashing proceedings when allegations are inherently improbable or do not constitute an offense.

3. Misuse of Legal Process:

The judgment highlighted the potential misuse of the legal process by the complainant, noting the delay in filing the complaint and the timing, which coincided with the initiation of divorce proceedings by her husband. The court observed that Bhawna's actions, including making a complaint against Abhishek to the High Court, demonstrated animosity and an ulterior motive to implicate her in-laws. The court expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC, which has been noted in previous judgments, where false implications and general allegations against in-laws in matrimonial disputes have been discouraged. The court concluded that allowing the proceedings to continue would result in an abuse of the process of law and inflict undue hardship on the appellants.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing FIR No. 56 of 2013 and Criminal Case No. 11954 of 2014 against the appellants, Kusum Lata, Abhishek Gour, and Sourabh Gour. The court found that the allegations were insufficient and improbable, and continuing the proceedings would lead to clear and patent injustice. The judgment underscores the importance of scrutinizing allegations in matrimonial disputes to prevent misuse of legal provisions and protect individuals from unwarranted prosecution.