Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on May 3, 2024 expressed concern over misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for wreaking vengeance on husband and family members and has asked the Union government to take 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.

The apex court said every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other side may not amount to cruelty and mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra referred to a previous judgment in case of 'Preeti Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand", (2010) where the Supreme Court had asked the legislature to look into provision after having noted exaggerated versions of the incident in a large number of complaints in cruelty complaints, leading to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. 

"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...(there 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," the bench noted.

Accordingly, Registry has been directed 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 Minister for Law and Justice as well as the Minister for Home for necessary action.

In the case at hand, the court allowed the appeal filed by Aachin Gupta against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order rejecting his plea to quash the FIR and charge sheet filed against him on a complaint by the wife.

"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 and also the domestic violence case (by the appellant's mother)," the bench said.

It noted the FIR was filed two years after divorce plea by the man and six months after the domestic violence complaint to harass the appellant and his family members. 

Dealing with the HC's power under Section 482 CrPC, the bench said 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 cognisable 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.

"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 CrPC 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 materialised into a chargesheet," it added..

Court has further said the foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, 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 bench said.

The bench also said 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," top court has observed.

It emphasised that only reason why court was 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. 

"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," it added.