This Product is Licensed to : Virendra M.

Vyas, Advocate

Docid # IndLawLib/1601134

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM AND OTHERS — Appellant

Vs.

STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 482 - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 341,
323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 - Quashing of FIR - Cruelty or harassment for dowry
and threatened to forcibly terminate her pregnancy if the demands were not met - Whether
allegations made against the in-laws Appellants are in the nature of general omnibus
allegations and therefore liable to be quashed? - Held, In the absence of any specific role
attributed to the accused-appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go
through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a
situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial - It has
been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual
acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be
discouraged - FIR quashed - Appeal allowed.
Counsel for Appearing Parties
Mr. Smarhar Singh, Advocate, Ms. Shweta Kumari, Advocate, Mr. Chinmay Sharma, Advocate, for the
Appellant; Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Advocate, Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Kumar Milind, Advocate, Mr.
Shagun Ruhil, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Cases Referred

Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273
G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693
Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 741
K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452
Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1
Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667
Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 259
Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. &Anr., (2018) 10 SCC 472
Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar & Anr. Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law And Justice
& Ors., (2018) 10 SCC 443
 JUDGMENT

Krishna Murari, J. - Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the High
Court of Patna in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1492 of 2019, filed by the Appellants under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') challenging the FIR No.
248/2019 dated 01.04.2019 implicating the Appellants for offences under Sections 341, 323, 379,
354, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). The High
Court vide order impugned herein dismissed the same.

Factual Matrix

3. The Complainant (Respondent No. 5 herein) Tarannum Akhtar @ Soni, was married to Md. Ikram
on 18.09.17. The appellants herein are the in-laws of Respondent No. 5. On 11.12.17, the said
Respondent initially instituted a criminal complaint against her husband and the appellants before
the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea alleging demand for dowry and harassment.
Thereafter, when the file was put up before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court, Purnea, for
passing order at the stage of issuance of summon, the Ld. Magistrate concluded that upon perusal
of material evidence no prima-facie case was made against the in-laws and that the allegations
levelled against them were not specific in nature. The said court, however, took cognizance for the
offence under section 498A, 323 IPC against the husband Md. Ikram, and issued summons. This
dispute was eventually resolved and Respondent No. 5 herein came back to the matrimonial home.

4. Subsequently, on 01.04.19, Respondent No. 5 herein, gave another written complaint for
registration of FIR under sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 IPC against her
husband Md. Ikram and the appellants herein. The complaint inter-alia alleged that all the accused
were pressurizing the Respondent wife herein to purchase a car as dowry, and threatened to forcibly
terminate her pregnancy if the demands were not met.

5. Aggrieved, the Husband and appellant herein filed a criminal writ petition before the Patna High
Court, for quashing of the said FIR dated 01.04.19, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
The High Court observed that the averments made in the FIR prima-facie disclosed commission of
an offence and therefore the matter was required to be investigated by the police. The Appellants
herein, being the niece (Respondent No. 1), Mother in-law (Respondent No. 2), Sister in-law
(Respondent No. 3), and brother in law (Respondent No. 4) have thereby approached this court by
way of the present Special Leave Petition.

Contentions made by the Appellants

6. The counsel for the Appellants herein contends, that the Police Officer was duty bound to
conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR as this instant case falls within the
categories of cases on which a preliminary enquiry may be made, as mandated by this court in Lalita
Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1.

7. It is also submitted that previously in the year 2017, the Respondent wife had instituted a
criminal complaint on similar allegations, whereby the Ld. Judicial Magistrate after considering the
evidence issued summons only against the husband, and found that the allegations made against
the appellants herein were omnibus in nature. Further, it is submitted that the FIR in question has
been made with a revengeful intent, merely to harass the Appellant in-laws herein, and should be
dealt with accordingly. Reliance is placed on Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar & Anr. Vs.
Union of India, Ministry of Law And Justice & Ors., (2018) 10 SCC 443, wherein it was observed:-

"4. Regarding the constitutionality of Section 498-A IPC, in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of
India and others , it was held by the Supreme Court:-

"Provision of S. 498A of Penal Code is not unconstitutional and ultra vires. Mere
possibility of abuse of a provision of law does not per se invalidate a legislation. Hence
plea that S. 498A has no legal or constitutional foundation is not tenable. The object of
the provisions is prevention of the dowry menace. But many instances have come to
light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. In
such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered
during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The
question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the
well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra
vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or
unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out
ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt
with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame-
work."

Contention made by Respondent No. 1 - State of Bihar

8. Respondent No. 1 herein i.e., the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertains to
offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before
the Ld. Principal Judge Purnea, to not harass the Respondent wife for dowry, and treat her properly.
However, the husband and appellants, despite the assurances, have continued their demand for
dowry and threatened with forcefully terminating the Respondent wife's pregnancy. These acts
constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 01.04.19, is distinct
and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17. Moreover,
an investigation was carried out pursuant to the FIR and the case has been found true against all
accused persons, therefore Lalita Kumari (Supra) will not apply in the present case.

Contentions made by Respondent No 5 - Complainant Wife

9. Respondent No. 5 contends that of the total seven accused, the FIR in question was challenged by
only five accused including her husband. It is argued that the impugned order is evidently accepted
by the accused husband Md. Ikram @Sikandar as he has not challenged the impugned High Court
judgment. Further, as far as involvement of the four accused Appellant in-laws is concerned, it is
not only reflected from the averments made in the FIR, but also corroborated from the oral and
documentary evidence collected by the investigating officer during investigation, culminating into
filing of charge-sheet against all seven accused including the four Appellants herein. The
allegations thus made in the FIR are sufficient to make out a prima facie case, and non-mentioning
of pendency of Complaint case of year 2017, at the time of filing the complaint 01.04.19 is not fatal
for the case of the prosecution.

10. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are serious in nature and the
Respondent wife has been repeatedly tortured physically and mentally in order to fulfil the demand
for dowry. Further, even if the contentions made by the Respondent No. 5 herein are disputed, by
the Appellant in-laws, their veracity can be tested in trial before the Trial Court. It is further
contended that this court has also taken a consistent view with regard to exercise of power under S.
482 Cr.P.C, in Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 259, wherein it has been
clearly held that even if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of an offence,
Court should not quash the complaint. Therefore, the impugned order can in no way be termed as
perverse, cryptic or erroneous and therefore warrant no interference by this Hon'ble Court.

Issue Involved

11. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the Appellants and Respondents, in
our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is
whether allegations made against the in-laws Appellants are in the nature of general omnibus
allegations and therefore liable to be quashed?

12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes
pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty
committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention.
However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also
increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of
marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions
such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.

13. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. &Anr., (2018) 10 SCC 472,
has observed:-

"14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at
the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had
potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects
and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A covers conduct
which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or
danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter
of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under already referred to
some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact
that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of
such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and
consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not
only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of
settlement."
14. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.,
(2014) 8 SCC 273, it was also observed:-

"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of
marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed
object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his
relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a
dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by
disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested
under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grandfathers and grand-mothers
of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."

15. Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667, it has also been
observed:-

"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A
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.

33. 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 498A 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.

34. 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.

35. 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.
 36. 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."

16. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 741, it was observed :-

"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded
in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in
a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the
complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped
into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed
therein with which we entirely agree that:

"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and
live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume
serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also
involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal
case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate
the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law
where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their
"young" days in chasing their cases in different courts." The view taken by the judges in
this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes."

17. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452, it was also observed
that:-

"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes
pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not
be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement
in the crime are made out."

18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances
expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating
relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a
trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that
false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute,
if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its
judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband
when no prima facie case is made out against them.
19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is
revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that
'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore,
no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e.,
none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general
allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the
role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and
omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as
husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not
examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are
concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant
prosecution.

20. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in
a previous FIR. Respondent No. 1 i.e., the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained to
offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before
the Ld. Principal Judge Purnea, to not harass the Respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her
properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It
is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in
question herein dated 01.04.19, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of
an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17.

21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent
instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific
allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear
allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.

22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific
role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go
through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a
situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been
highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal
also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.

23. In view of the above facts and discussions, the impugned order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the
High Court of Patna is set aside. The impugned F.I.R. No. 248 of 2019 against the Appellants under
Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 IPC stands quashed.

24. As a result, appeal stands allowed.