VERDICTUM.

IN

2024 INSC 369 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2379 OF 2024
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 4912 OF 2022)

ACHIN GUPTA ……APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. ……RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

J. B. PARDIWALA, J.:

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court

of Punjab & Haryana dated 05.04.2022 in the Criminal Main No. 14198-2022

(CRM-M-14198-2022) filed by the Appellant herein (sole accused in the

chargesheet) by which the High Court rejected the petition & thereby declined

to quash the chargesheet dated 13.10.2021 for the offences punishable under

Section 323, 406, 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the

“IPC”) arising from the First Information Report No. 95 of 2021 lodged by the

Page 1 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

Respondent No. 2 (wife of the Appellant) at the Urban Estate Hisar Police

Station, District Hisar.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The FIR dated 09.04.2021 reads thus: -

“1. That the First Informant Tanu Gupta wife of Achin Gupta
and daughter of Harish Manocha, is a resident of House
No.1368, Urban Estate - 2, Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar
and is a peace loving and law abiding woman and my
marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and
rituals with Accused No.1 on 09.10.2008 at New Delhi. My
family had spent about thirty lakhs rupees in my
engagement ceremony and marriage as per the direction of
the accused persons towards furniture, jewellery, clothes
and other household articles. At the time of marriage, my
family handed over all her jewellery and stridhan to the
accused persons saying that it is the stridhan of the first
informant and whenever the first informant will need her
stridhan, it has to be given back to her whereupon the
accused persons assured the family of the first informant
that whenever the first informant will need it, they will give
it back to her.

2. That after the marriage, the first informant and Accused

No.1 lived as husband and wife at B-39, Phase-2, Vikas
Nagar, Hastsaal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi 110059 and the
first informant performed all the duties of a wife and out of
the said wedlock a boy, namely, Advay aged 8 years was
born, who is presently residing with Accused No.1.

3. That after few days of the marriage, when the first

informant went to her matrimonial house at that time the
Accused persons taunted that your family has lowered
down our image in the society and before relatives by
giving less dowry and said to the first informant that at
least your family should have given a big car in the dowry
because Accused No.1 is doing a good job and almost
earns Rs. 1,50,000/- monthly and for him, we were getting

Page 2 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

proposal from rich families who would have spent cores of

rupees on the marriage. On this the first informant said that
her family had already given 5 lakhs rupees in cash for
purchasing the car and have already spent more than their
capability and now they cannot fulfil your demand for more
dowry whereupon accused persons threatened the first
informant saying that if you want to live with us then you
have to get our above demand for the dowry fulfilled by
your parents otherwise you will not be allowed to live in
this house.

4. That whenever the first informant cooked food in the

matrimonial home, the accused persons always used to
point out unnecessary defects in the food and taunted the
first informant that she does not know cooking. To harass
and upset the first informant, the accused persons
deliberately asked her to make various dishes and when the
first informant showed her inability, the accused persons
used to abuse and beat her.

5. That Accused No.3 is the mother-in-law of the first

informant, who is a teacher and she used to leave the house
at 7:00 hrs in the morning for the school and the first
informant used to do all household works and when her
mother-in-law returned from the school, she deliberately
used to point out defects in her work and used to taunt the
first informant that your family should have given gold
bangles to me and now, you would have to bring gold
bangles from your family and when the first informant tell
her that her family had already spent a lot over her
marriage, then she used to abuse and give beatings to the
first informant.

6. That Accused No.4 is the sister-in-law of the first informant

who used to say that your family should have given a
diamond set for me in the marriage which they have not
given and now if you want to live in this house you have to
bring diamond set for me otherwise I will not let you live in
the house and besides this, Accused No.4 treated the first
informant like a domestic servant and used to abuse and
give beatings to the first informant over petty issues and
instigated the other members of the family against the first
informant. That the first informant always performed the

Page 3 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

duties of an ideal wife with utmost honesty and sincerity

and the first informant had always lived with Accused No.1
with love and always fulfils his demands and demands of
the other accused persons. That the first informant used to
do all household work at her matrimonial house in
whatever manner the accused persons used to ask her. In
this way, there is no fault on the part of the first informant.
That Accused No.1 had never treated the first informant
with love and care rather he used to treat the first
informant with cruelty. Beating and abusing the first
informant on account of demand of dowry was a daily
routine of the Accused persons.

7. That Accused No. 1 is an alcoholic. Who use to torture,

abuse, beat the first informant and treated her inhumanely
on account of less dowry under the effect of alcohol.
Whenever the first informant used to tell her parents-in law
Accused No. 2 and 3 about this they said that until you do
not get our demand of dowry fulfilled by your parents till
then you have to bear all this. The Accused persons used to
treat the first informant like a domestic servant. The first
informant was not allowed to even make phone calls to her
family and Accused No. 1 deliberately had hacked the
phone of the first informant and she was not allowed to step
out of the house. Being a Hindu woman the first informant
tolerated all tortures of the Accused with a hope that one
day they will mend their ways and the first informant's will
live in the house happily but the same did not happen
rather the behaviour of the Accused persons became more
cruel towards the first informant.

8. That Accused No. 5 is the brother-in-law of the first

informant and he resides in Delhi. After the marriage he
used to come to the matrimonial house of the first
informant alongwith Accused No. 4 and used to instigate
Accused No. 1 to 3 against the first informant. When the
first informant used to oppose this he used to hurl abuses to
the first informant.

9. That during this period the Accused persons have beaten

the first informant multiple times for demand of dowry and
whenever the accused persons threw out the first informant
out of the house every time the family of the Petitioner used

Page 4 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

to come along with panchas of the society and sat with the
Accused persons and in every meeting at least something
was given to the Accused persons but the Accused persons
neither left their demand for dowry nor they changed their
behaviour.

10. That on 02.03.2012 a son Advay was born to the first

informant, the Accused persons said to the first informant
that now in the traditional gifts you have to fulfil our
demand for dowry. In the traditional gift the family of the
first informant gave 5 tolas of gold ornaments, 51 thousand
rupees in cash, and spent about 1 lakh rupees on clothing,
sweets and other items. But the Accused persons were not
satisfied with the articles gifted at that time and were
adamant on their demand.

11. That when the first informant was at her matrimonial house
she was posted on the post of Assistant Professor in a
college at Delhi but Accused No. 1 to 3 used to snatch the
whole salary of the first informant and even did not give
pocket money to the first informant. Whenever the first
informant demanded pocket money from Accused No. 1 he
used to beat her and said that you take your expenses from
your family. It is pertinent to mention here that even after
the marriage the family of the first informant many times
gave pocket money and money for other expenses. Before
going for her job the first informant used to do all
household work and prepared lunch after waking up early
in the morning and then she went to the college and after
returning in the evening she used to do all household work.

12. That after the marriage, Accused No.3 and 4 pressurized

the first informant that you have to wear saree because
according to the tradition, the daughters-in-law used to
wear sarees. When the first informant said that I am not
able to do the household chores while wearing saree, they
both used to beat and abuse the first informant.

13. That in 2014, the first informant came to know that her
husband Respondent No.1 is in illicit relationship with
Vandana Sharma and when the first informant objected to
this Accused No. 1 used to abuse and beat her and used to
threaten that if you will tell this fact to anyone, I will kill

Page 5 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

you. It is pertinent to mention here that on 19.03.2019 when

Accused No. 1 had taken the abovenamed Vandana Sharma
on a tour to Jaipur, Rajasthan at that time the first
informant and her brother reached Khaskoti Hotel, Jaipur
and there they found both of them in a compromising
position and objected to it, Accused No. 1 slapped the first
informant and said that why have you brought your family
here. At that time the first informant and her family did not
initiate any legal proceedings against the Accused No.1
because Accused No.1 had assured that after today he
would not meet Vandana Sharma and after this the first
informant went to her matrimonial house alongwith
Accused No.1.

14. That even after this Accused No. 1 used to talk with
Vandana Sharma on phone and also met with her. While the
first informant was at her matrimonial house, Accused No.1
filed a Divorce Petition on 25.07.2019 and which was filed
on the basis of false and baseless grounds. In the said case
when on 10.08.2019 a summon came at 6:30 in the
morning, Accused No. 1 and 2 forcibly got the summons
signed by the first informant and said that now we do not
need you anymore and when the first informant objected to
this, they had beaten the first informant. Thereafter the first
informant called her father on phone and called him at her
matrimonial house. Thereafter my family members came to
my matrimonial house. Thereafter on 10.08.2019 the first
informant filed an application against the Accused persons
at Ranholla police station, Delhi and after that the first
informant came to her parental house alongwith her father.
Thereafter as per the order of the court the first informant
again started living with Accused No. 1 at her matrimonial
house.

15. That in March, 2020 during the pandemic of Covid-19,

Accused No. 1 took the minor son with him and did not
come home for so many days and before leaving the house
Accused No. 1 had cut the water connection, and television
connection of the house. Thereafter the first informant
called her father on phone and called him at her house.
Thereafter on 30.03.2020 the father of the first informant
after getting the permission from police the father of the
first informant brought her to her parental home from her

Page 6 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

matrimonial house. When the first informant informed

Accused No. 1 over phone that I am going with my father
then he said that who wants to keep you with him.
Thereafter the family of the first informant held many
meetings in the presence of elders and respectable members
of the society and tried to convince the Accused persons
that they should keep the first informant with them but the
Accused persons were stubborn on their demands of dowry
and had clearly refused to keep the first informant without
fulfillment of their demand for dowry and when the first
informant asked for her jewellery, stridhan and for her
minor son, they clearly refused and threatened that if you
file any complaint to the police against us we will kill the
first informant.

16. That in this way, the Accused persons have ignored the first
informant due to their dowry demand and they have even
not returned the first informant her stridhan and are
threatening that if without fulfilling their demand of dowry,
the first informant comes to their house, they will kill her.
Thus, by giving this complaint, a request is being made to
take immediate action against the accused persons for
demanding dowry, giving beatings and threatening me to
kill and my stridhan be recovered from the accused
persons. It will be so kind of you.”

4. The plain reading of the aforesaid FIR would indicate that the Appellant

and his family members are alleged to have demanded dowry and thereby

caused mental and physical trauma to the First Informant. As stated in the FIR,

the family of the First Informant had spent a large sum at the time of marriage

and had also handed over her ‘stridhan’ to the Appellant and his family.

However, shortly after marriage, the Appellant and his family started harassing

the First Informant on the false pretext that she had failed to discharge her

duties as a wife and daughter-in-law and also pressurised her for some more

dowry. The Appellant is alleged to be an alcoholic and used to regularly raise

Page 7 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

his hands on the First Informant and treat her inhumanely. Allegedly, upon

complaining to the Appellant’s father and mother (Accused Nos. 2 & 3 in the

FIR), they would take the side of their son i.e., the Appellant herein and would

pressurize the First Informant to get something more towards dowry.

5. The First Informant has further alleged that her sister-in-law (Accused

No. 4 in the FIR) used to harass her for a diamond set & would threaten that

failing to get one, she would be driven out of her matrimonial home.

6. The First Informant was serving as an Assistant Professor and has alleged

that the Appellant and his family would keep her entire salary. The Appellant

would assault her whenever she would ask for money, saying that the First

Informant should ask her family to bear her personal expenses.

7. It is also alleged that the Appellant was having an extra marital affair with

one another woman, and he would threaten the First Informant with dire

consequences had she told anyone of his affair. The Appellant continued with

the extra marital affair for a long period & later filed a divorce petition in July

2019 on absolutely false and baseless grounds.

8. It is further alleged that during the initial days of the Covid-19 lockdown,

the Appellant disconnected the water supply at their matrimonial home and took

away their minor son. In such circumstances, the First Informant was left with

no option but to leave her matrimonial home and return to her parents. Efforts

Page 8 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

were made for some settlement however the Appellant and his family kept on

insisting for more dowry and also refused to return her stridhan.

9. Upon the FIR referred to above being registered, the police carried out

the investigation & proceeded to file chargesheet dated 13.10.2021, only against

the Appellant herein. A closure report was filed against the remaining 4 accused.

The filing of the chargesheet culminated in the Criminal Case No.

CHI/1856/2021in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hisar.

10. The Appellant herein went before the High Court, with a quashing

petition for the purpose of getting the criminal proceedings quashed. The High

Court vide its judgment & order dated 05.04.2022 (‘impugned order’),

declined to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers

under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the

“Cr.P.C.”). The High Court made the following observations: -

“I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at

length and have gone through the record carefully.

The main thrust of the arguments raised by counsel

for the petitioner is that the complainant had never
been interested in living in the matrimonial home and
she kept on pressurizing the petitioner for living
separately from his family members. In order to
achieve her objective she kept on causing harassment
to the petitioner and his family members. However, a
perusal of the allegations in the FIR would show that
the petitioner and the family members gave taunting
to the complainant for lowering down their image in
the society. Demand of a car was also made.
Complainant was taunted for not having been

Page 9 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

incurred sufficient expenditure on marriage by her

parents. There are allegations of beating the
complainant by her husband and the other family
members. It has been specifically alleged that the
petitioner is an alcoholic and has illicit relations with
one Vandana Sharma.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law time

and again regarding exercising the jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR. A reference in
this regard may be made to the law settled in case of
State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335, wherein following parameters have been given:-

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the

various relevant provisions of the Code 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 inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted
and reproduced above, we have given the
following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down
any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of 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 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under

Page 10 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

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."

Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra,
2021 SCC Online SC 315 has held that quashing of
FIR is an exception rather than an ordinary rule and
Page 11 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

the High Court should exercise the powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. sparingly with circumspection.

Taking into consideration the above facts and

circumstances of the present case in the light of the
law settled, the present case does not fall in the
category of cases for invoking the inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The parameters laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court mandate that in a case
where from the bare reading of the allegations in the
FIR no cognizable offence is made out or it has been
lodged to wreak the vengeance then the High Court
may intervene. The veracity of the allegations levelled
by the complainant can be assessed only after a
thorough investigation and thereafter by the Trial
Court on the basis of the evidence led before it.

Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the

petitioner does not qualify for exercising its jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Resultantly, the petition
being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.”
(Emphasis supplied)

11. In view of the aforesaid, the Appellant is before this Court with the

present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

12. Mr. Yusuf, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant herein made

the following submissions: -

 The Appellant and his family had filed a divorce petition and also a

domestic violence case against the First Informant in 2019 and 2020

respectively. As a counter blast to the same, the FIR No. 95 of 2021 dated

09.04.2021 came to be lodged after a period of more than 11 months from

Page 12 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

the date the First Informant left her matrimonial home and that too, only

after the service of summons to her in the domestic violence case. No

plausible explanation has been offered for such delay.

 The FIR was filed with an oblique motive & by way of vengeance

towards the Appellant. The First Informant and Appellant were married

for over 12 years.

 The allegations in the FIR are too vague and general in nature. There is

no specific allegation/incident of harassment levelled against the

Appellant in the FIR.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST

INFORMANT/RESPONDENT NO. 2

13. Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the First

Informant herein made the following submissions:

 The Appellant and his family continuously demanded for additional

dowry after the marriage. They used to beat the First Informant and take

away her entire salary.

 After filing of the divorce petition, the Appellant stopped paying anything

towards her maintenance and also disconnected the basic facilities such as

water connection etc., leaving her with no option but to leave the

matrimonial home and return to her parents house at Hisar.

 The Appellant had an affair with another woman. Only with a view to

save the marriage, she kept quiet and did not inform about it to the others.

Page 13 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

 The domestic violence case filed against the First Informant is absolutely

frivolous and vexatious.

 The Appellant failed to inform this Court that he had withdrawn the

divorce proceedings instituted against the First Informant.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE

14. Mr. Chritarth Palli, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State

(Respondent No. 1 herein) made the following submissions:

 The Police upon registration of the FIR, conducted a fair investigation.

On completion of the investigation, the proceedings against 4 out of the 5

accused came to be dropped. However, having regard to the nature of the

allegations levelled, the investigating officer thought fit to file

chargesheet against the Appellant.

ANALYSIS

15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having

gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our

consideration is whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed?

16. The Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 got married in October 2008.

The couple lived together for more than a decade and in the wedlock a child

was born in March 2012.

17. We take notice of the fact that the Appellant filed a divorce petition in

July 2019 on the ground of cruelty. The divorce petition was withdrawn as the

Page 14 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

Appellant was finding it difficult to take care of his child, while travelling all

the way to Hisar on the dates fixed by the Court. The Appellant’s mother had to

file a domestic violence case against the First Informant in October 2020 under

the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

18. The plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet papers indicate that the

allegations levelled by the First Informant are quite vague, general and

sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. It is also pertinent to

note that in the FIR no specific date or time of the alleged offence/offences has

been disclosed. Even the police thought fit to drop the proceedings against the

other members of the Appellant’s family. Thus, we are of the view that the FIR

lodged by the Respondent No. 2 was nothing but a counterblast to the divorce

petition & also the domestic violence case.

19. It is also pertinent to note that the Respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR on

09.04.2021, i.e., nearly 2 years after the filing of the divorce petition by the

Appellant and 6 months after the filing of the domestic violence case by her

mother-in-law. Thus, the First Informant remained silent for nearly 2 years after

the divorce petition was filed. With such an unexplained delay in filing the FIR,

we find that the same was filed only to harass the Appellant and his family

members.

20. It is now well settled that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has

to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only where such exercise

is justified by the tests laid down in the Section itself. It is also well settled that

Page 15 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court but

only saves the inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment

of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are three circumstances under which the

inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (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.

21. The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the

Police Officers, whose powers in that field are unfettered, so long as the power

to investigate into the cognizable offence is legitimately exercised in strict

compliance with the provisions under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C.. While

exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the court does not function

as a Court of appeal or revision. As noted above, the inherent jurisdiction under

the Section, although wide, yet should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with

caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid

down in the Section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and

substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. The

authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is

made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has the power

to prevent such abuse. 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, the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it

finds that the initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of

Page 16 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

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.

22. Once the investigation is over and chargesheet is filed, the FIR pales into

insignificance. The court, thereafter, owes a duty to look into all the materials

collected by the investigating agency in the form of chargesheet. There is

nothing in the words of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which restricts the exercise of

the power of the court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of

justice only to the stage of the FIR. It would be a travesty of justice to hold that

the proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of

FIR but not if it has materialized into a chargesheet.

23. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866, this

Court summarised 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 e.g. want of
sanction;

ii) where the allegations in the first information report

or complaint taken at its 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.
Page 17 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

24. This Court, in the case of State of A.P. v. Vangaveeti Nagaiah, reported

in (2009) 12 SCC 466 : AIR 2009 SC 2646, interpreted clause (iii) referred to

above, observing thus: -

“6. In dealing with the last category, it is important to

bear in mind the distinction between a case where
there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence
which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations
made, and a case where there is legal evidence which,
on appreciation, may or may not support the
accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not
ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the
evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a
reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be
sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge.
Judicial process no doubt should not be an instrument
of oppression, or, needless harassment Court should
be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion
and should take all relevant facts and circumstances
into consideration before issuing process, lest it would
be an instrument in the hands of a private
complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person
needlessly. At the same time the Section is not an
instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit
a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The
scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the
Code and the categories of cases where the High
Court may exercise its power under it relating to
cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were
set out in some detail by this Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. A
note of caution was, however, added that the power
should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of
rare cases.

The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are

as follows:

Page 18 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

“(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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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.

Page 19 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

(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.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping

allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal

conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a

duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to

find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or

whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals

in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a

matrimonial dispute.

26. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2010 Criminal Law

Journal 4303 (1), this Court observed the following: -

“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 Penal Code, 1860
which reads as under:

“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a

woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being
the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
Page 20 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

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
Page 21 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

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.

Page 22 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for

all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may
also not be 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 and Justice to take
appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.”
(Emphasis supplied)

27. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to and rely upon the decision of

this Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (Criminal Appeal No.

1277 of 2014, decided on 2nd July, 2014). In the said case, the petitioner,

apprehending arrest in a case under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, prayed for anticipatory bail before this Court,

having failed to obtain the same from the High Court. In that context, the

observations made by this Court in paras 6, 7 and 8 respectively are worth

taking note of. They are reproduced below: -

“6. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial

disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is
greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the 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

Page 23 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

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 grand-fathers and
grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living
abroad for decades are arrested. Crime in India 2012
Statistics published by National Crime Records Bureau,
Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762
persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence
under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the
year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this
provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts
that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally
included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the
total persons arrested under the crimes committed
under Penal Code, 1860. It accounts for 4.5% of total
crimes committed under different sections of penal
code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and
hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section
498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction
rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As
many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on
current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in
acquittal.

7. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast

scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police.
There is a battle between the law makers and the police
and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the
lesson implicit and embodied in the Cr.PC. It has not
come out of its colonial image despite six decades of
independence, it is largely considered as a tool of
harassment, oppression and surely not considered a
friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the
drastic power of arrest has been emphasized time and
again by Courts but has not yielded desired result.
Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so
also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only
this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources
of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then
proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a

Page 24 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or

act with oblique motive.

8. Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this

Court in a large number of judgments emphasized the
need to maintain a balance between individual liberty
and societal order while exercising the power of arrest.
Police officers make arrest as they believe that they
possess the power to do so. As the arrest curtails
freedom, brings humiliation and casts scars forever, we
feel differently. We believe that no arrest should be
made only because the offence is non-bailable and
cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers
to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one
thing, the justification for the exercise of it is quite
another. Apart from power to arrest, the police officers
must be able to justify the reasons thereof. No arrest
can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation
of commission of an offence made against a person. It
would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no
arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction
reached after some investigation as to the genuineness
of the allegation. Despite this legal position, the
Legislature did not find any improvement. Numbers of
arrest have not decreased. Ultimately, the Parliament
had to intervene and on the recommendation of the
177th Report of the Law Commission submitted in the
year 2001, Section 41 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.), in the present form came
to be enacted. It is interesting to note that such a
recommendation was made by the Law Commission in
its 152nd and 154th Report submitted as back in the year
1994. …”
(Emphasis Supplied)

28. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P. reported in (2012)

10 SCC 741, this Court observed as under: -

“19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents

of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no
allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji

Page 25 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who

have been included in the FIR but mere casual
reference of the names of the family members in a
matrimonial dispute without allegation of active
involvement in the matter would not justify taking
cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out
of experience that there is a tendency to involve the
entire family members of the household in the domestic
quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially
if it happens soon after the wedding.

20. 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 v. L.H.V. Prasad 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.”

Page 26 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

The view taken by the judges in this matter was

that the courts would not encourage such
disputes.

21. In yet another case reported in (2003) 4 SCC

675 : AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S.
Joshi v. State of Haryana it was observed that there is
no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA
containing Section 498A in the Penal Code, 1860 was
to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by
relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with
a view to punish the husband and his relatives who
harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to
satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the
proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section
498A against the husband and his relatives and
subsequently she has settled her disputes with her
husband and his relatives and the wife and husband
agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent
powers by the High Court would not be proper as it
would prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the
purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR
becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a
bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would
however be a different matter depending upon the facts
and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or
not to exercise such a power.”
(Emphasis supplied)

29. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 as well as the

learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the High Court was

justified in not embarking upon an enquiry as regards the truthfulness or

reliability of the allegations in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482

of the Cr.P.C. as once there are allegations disclosing the commission of a

cognizable offence then whether they are true or false should be left to the trial

court to decide.

Page 27 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

30. In the aforesaid context, we should look into the category 7 as indicated

by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The category 7 as laid reads

thus: -

“(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."
31. We are of the view that the category 7 referred to above should be taken

into consideration and applied in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. If

the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of

her husband and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the

FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence the

Court with a view to doing substantial justice should read in between the lines

the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter.

If the submission canvassed by the counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2

and the State is to be accepted mechanically then in our opinion the very

conferment of the inherent power by the Cr.P.C. upon the High Court would be

rendered otiose. We are saying so for the simple reason that if the wife on

account of matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband and his family

members then the first thing, she would ensure is to see that proper allegations

are levelled in the First Information Report. Many times the services of

professionals are availed for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a

legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any loopholes or

Page 28 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

other deficiencies in the same. However, that does not mean that the Court

should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true

or false, there are allegations in the First Information Report and the chargesheet

papers disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. If the allegations alone

as levelled, more particularly in the case like the one on hand, are to be looked

into or considered then why the investigating agency thought fit to file a closure

report against the other co-accused? There is no answer to this at the end of the

learned counsel appearing for the State. We say so, because allegations have

been levelled not only against the Appellant herein but even against his parents,

brother & sister. If that be so, then why the police did not deem fit to file

chargesheet against the other co-accused? It appears that even the investigating

agency was convinced that the FIR was nothing but an outburst arising from a

matrimonial dispute.

32. Many times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife make a

mountain out of a mole. Instead of salvaging the situation and making all

possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or

on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings

about complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that

comes in the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police, as if

the Police is the panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches up to the

Police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses,

they would get destroyed. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance,

Page 29 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a

certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles,

trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and

blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in the

heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that

point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case,

always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their

character and social status. A very technical and hyper sensitive approach would

prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial

disputes the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom

in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would

come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a

very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned. The only

reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue

delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but

hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and

harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The

degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. However, the Police

machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very

genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be

utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be

squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends. In

Page 30 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of

the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections

506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause

annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations,

quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also

not amount to cruelty.

33. Lord Denning, in Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky, (1950) 2 All ER 398 observed

as under: -

“When the conduct consists of direct action by one

against the other, it can then properly be said to be
aimed at the other, even though there is no desire to
injure the other or to inflict misery on him. Thus, it may
consist of a display of temperament, emotion, or
perversion whereby the one gives vent to his or her own
feelings, not intending to injure the other, but making
the other the object-the butt-at whose expense the
emotion is relieved.”

When there is no intent to injure, they are not to be

regarded as cruelty unless they are plainly and
distinctly proved to cause injury to health……..when
the conduct does not consist of direct action against the
other, but only of misconduct indirectly affecting him or
her, such as drunkenness, gambling, or crime, then it
can only properly be said to be aimed at the other when
it is done, not only for the gratification of the selfish
desires of the one who does it, but also in some part
with an intention to injure the other or to inflict misery
on him or her. Such an intention may readily be inferred
from the fact that it is the natural consequence of his
conduct, especially when the one spouse knows, or it
has already been brought to his notice, what the
consequences will be, and nevertheless he does it,
careless and indifferent whether it distresses the other
Page 31 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

spouse or not The Court is, however not bound to draw

the inference. The presumption that a person intends the
natural consequences of his acts is one that may not
must-be drawn. If in all the circumstances it is not the
correct inference, then it should not be drawn. In cases
of this kind, if there is no desire to injure or inflict
misery on the other, the conduct only becomes cruelty
when the justifiable remonstrances of the innocent party
provoke resentment on the part of the other, which
evinces itself in actions or words actually or physically
directed at the innocent party.”

34. What constitutes cruelty in matrimonial matters has been well explained

in American Jurisprudence 2nd edition Vol. 24 page 206. It reads thus: -

“The question whether the misconduct complained of

constitute cruelty and the like for divorce purposes is
determined primarily by its effect upon the particular
person complaining of the acts. The question is not
whether the conduct would be cruel to a reasonable
person or a person of average or normal sensibilities,
but whether it would have that effect upon the
aggrieved spouse. That which may be cruel to one
person may be laughed off by another, and what may
not be cruel to an individual under one set of
circumstances may be extreme cruelty under another set
of circumstances.”
(Emphasis supplied)

35. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in Mahmood Ali &

Ors. v. State of U.P & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950, authored by one of us

(J.B. Pardiwala, J.), the legal principle applicable apropos Section 482 of the

CrPC was examined. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes

before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482

CrPC or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to

Page 32 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that

such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the

ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High

Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was

further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the

averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining

whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed

or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty to look

into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case

over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and

circumspection, to try and read between the lines.

36. For the foregoing reasons, we have reached to the conclusion that if the

criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the Appellant, the same

will be nothing short of abuse of process of law & travesty of justice. This is a

fit case wherein, the High Court should have exercised its inherent power under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings.

37. Before we close the matter, we would like to invite the attention of the

Legislature to the observations made by this Court almost 14 years ago in Preeti

Gupta (supra) as referred to in para 26 of this judgment. We once again

reproduce paras 34 and 35 respectively as under:

Page 33 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

“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 be 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 and Justice to take
appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.”

38. In the aforesaid context, we looked into Sections 85 and 86 respectively

of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which is to come into force with effect

from 1st July, 2024 so as to ascertain whether the Legislature has seriously

looked into the suggestions of this Court as made in Preeti Gupta (supra).

Sections 85 and 86 respectively are reproduced herein below:

“Husband or relative of husband of a woman

subjecting her to cruelty.

Page 34 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

85. Whoever, being the 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.

Cruelty defined.

86. For the purposes of section 85, “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.”

39. The aforesaid is nothing but verbatim reproduction of Section 498A of

the IPC. The only difference is that the Explanation to Section 498A of the IPC,

is now by way of a separate provision, i.e., Section 86 of the Bhartiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023.

40. We request the Legislature to look into the issue as highlighted above

taking into consideration the pragmatic realities and consider making necessary

changes in Sections 85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023, before both the new provisions come into force.

41. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside.

Page 35 of 36
 VERDICTUM.IN

42. The proceedings of CHI/1856/2021 arising from FIR No. 95 of 2021

dated 09.04.2021, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hisar

are hereby quashed.

43. Pending application(s) if any shall be disposed of.

44. We direct the Registry to send one copy each of this judgment to the

Union Law Secretary and Union Home Secretary, to the Government of India

who may place it before the Hon’ble Minister for Law and Justice as well as the

Hon’ble Minister for Home.

…………………………………..J.
(J.B. Pardiwala)

………………………………….J.
(Manoj Misra)
New Delhi;
Date: 3rd May, 2024.

Page 36 of 36