Emphasising that pragmatic realities must be taken into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases where the allegations have to be scrutinised with greater care and circumspection to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of law, the Supreme Court ruled that the allegations reflecting the daily wear and tear of marriage, in no way, can be categorised as cruelty, and the act of the accused (husband) of sending money to his family members cannot be misconstrued in a way that leads to a criminal prosecution.
The Apex Court explained that the monetary and financial dominance of the accused-appellant, as alleged by the complainant-respondent, cannot qualify as an instance of cruelty, especially in the absence of any tangible mental or physical harm caused.
The said situation is a mirror reflection of the Indian society, where men of the households often try to dominate and take charge of the finances of the women, but criminal litigation cannot become a gateway or a tool to settle scores and pursue personal vendettas, added the Court.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that allegations of the complainant, such as lack of care on the part of the husband, the accused-appellant, during pregnancy and postpartum and constant taunts about her afterbirth weight, if accepted prima facie, at best reflects poorly upon the character of the accused, but the same cannot amount to cruelty to make him suffer through the process of litigation.
Merely stating that the accused-appellant has mentally harassed the complainant-respondent with respect to a demand of dowry does not fulfil the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC, especially in the face of the absence of any cogent material or evidence on record to substantiate the said allegations, added the Bench.
The Bench pointed out that the term “cruelty” cannot be established without specific instances, and the tendency to invoke these sections without mentioning any specific details weakens the case of prosecution and casts serious aspersions on the viability of the version of the complainant. Therefore, the missing specifics in an FIR, which is the premise of invoking the criminal machinery of the State, cannot be ignored. Accordingly, the Bench quashed the FIR.
Briefly, the complainant-respondent and the accused-appellant, both software engineers working in the USA, got married in Andhra Pradesh. Later, due to matrimonial discord, the complainant, along with her minor son, moved back to India and began living in her parental home in Hyderabad. The restitution of conjugal rights sought by the accused went in vain, and the complainant lodged an FIR against the accused and his family members under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, alleging physical and mental harassment coupled with the demands for dowry.
The accused, therefore, approached the Telangana High Court for the quashing of the FIR, which was refused, opining that the accused had to undergo the trial to prove his defence.
Appearances:
AOR S. S. Jauhar, along with Advocates Prabhjit Jauhar and Chahat Raghav, for the Appellant
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, AORs Devina Sehgal and Megha Karnwal, along with Advocates Yatharth Kansal, Surya Prakash, Abhishek Tiwari, and Anurag Mishra, for the Respondents
