Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

  • Setting aside an impugned order of the Patna High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court (“the Court”), in the case of KahkashanKausar @ Sonam v State of Bihar, held that general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of a complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. The Court further highlighted that a criminal trial in such cases eventually leading to an acquittal can also inflict scars upon the accused and thus, such exercise must be discouraged.
  • The Court also observed that complaints under section 498A which do not have any bona fide basis not only causes unprecedented suffrage before and during the trial but also results on severe misery given the adverse media coverage.
  • Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1806 (IPC) aims to safeguard a woman from cruelty in the hands of husband and his relatives thereof. The Court, at the very outset, expressed its concerns regarding increasing cases of marital discord and friction and how this has led to increased number of cases being filed under section 498A, sometimes for personal vendetta. However, the Court, relying on the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma v UOI &Ors remarked that mere possibility of abuse of a process of law does not invalidate the entire section.
  • Brief facts of the case are the complainant (wife) instituted a criminal complaint (FIR 1) against the husband and his relatives alleging that they demanded dowry and harassed her. Subsequently, the case was resolved and the wife re-joined her matrimonial home.
  • After a certain passage of time, the wife filed another criminal complaint (FIR 2) against the husband and his relatives under sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with section 34 of the IPC. Aggrieved, the husband and the appellants (ie, relatives) filed a case in the Patna High Court (HC) for quashing the complaint. The HC observed that the averments in the FIR disclosed a prima facie case and the same called for an investigation. Aggrieved by the order of the HC, the appellants approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition (SLP).
  • The question for adjudication before the Court was whether the complaint filed against the husband and the Appellants are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and liable to be quashed?
  • Making observations of judgments of various HCs in cases of Rajesh Sharma and Ors v State of U.P (2018), Arnesh Kumar vState of Bihar and Anr (2014), Preeti Gupta &Anr v State of Jharkhand &Anr (2010), Geeta Mehrotra &Anr v State of UP &Anr (2012), K. Subba Rao v The State of Telangana (2018), the Court expressed it concerns regarding the rising instances of misuse of section 498A and warned other courts from initiating proceedings absence of any prima facie case against the husband and his relatives.
  • The Court observed that the FIR levelled general accusations against the appellants and no specific/ distinct allegations were made out against them. No specific role has been attributed in furtherance of the general allegations. Given this, the allegations are said to have been made only on account of small skirmishes.
  • The Court further observed that while it had not examined the allegations made against the husband, the allegations made against the appellants are general and omnibus in nature and do not call for any prosecution. Held, allowing the prosecution to continue in the absence of any specific allegations will result in an abuse of process of law. In result, the appeal was allowed and the FIR under sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with section 34 of the IPC stood quashed.
  • Lastly, the Court also remarked that the two FIRs filed against the husband and his relatives are to be treated on different footing as both deal with distinct complaints. FIR 1 relates to the year 2017 when a case was filed for dowry harassment and FIR 2 relates to the year 2019 wherein the harassment of the wife continued despite earlier assurance that the wife will be treated properly. While FIR 2 has been quashed, FIR 1 constitutes a fresh cause of action.
"Loved reading this piece by Megha?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  141  Report



Comments
img

Course