The Karnataka High Court has quashed a complaint filed against a man by his wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code after he refused to give money to her to buy necessities for performing a pooja.
The Court found that the wife’s allegations in the complaint didn’t fulfill the essential materials required to invoke Section 498A (cruelty to women after marriage) against the husband.
“The complaint is so vague as it would fetter vagueness itself. The investigation has led to the filing of the charge sheet, without rhyme or reason, fortunately leaving out the parents, in the charge sheet. It is filed only against the husband and against the husband what is found is as afore-quoted. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 498A is recklessly and loosely laid against the petitioner.“
It was a case of marital dispute between the petitioner and the complainant (the wife), who have been married for 15 years and also have a 14-year-old son.
The wife filed a complaint against the petitioner and his family members alleging them of various offences, including Section 498A of the IPC. On her complaint, the Police investigated and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner. But the charges against the other family members were dropped later. And the petitioner approached the court to seek quashing of criminal proceedings against him.
He argued that the complaint didn’t have essential elements of the alleged offences under Section 498A, 504, and 506 of the IPC. On the other hand, the wife claimed that although the complaint might be poorly written, it did contain allegations against him.
The bench perused the complaint and noted that the wife had asked the petitioner for money to bring certain materials for a pooja to which the petitioner refused to give her any money. The whole case between the parties was initiated based on the same matter of rejection.
The Court said, “what would unmistakably emerge is certain skirmishes between the husband and the wife, which happen, if not daily, but quite often, is projected to become the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC.“
It was noted that Section 498A requires cruelty causing grave injury or danger to life. The complaint centred around a trivial dispute between the spouses over the refusal of money for a religious ritual, which clearly appeared insufficient to qualify as cruelty.
Section 504 and 506 (deal with insult and criminal intimidation) were invoked without strong grounds, taking the nature of the allegations into account.
Referring to the complaint and the chargesheet, the bench held,
“If the complaint in its entirety and the summary of the charge sheet are juxta-posed, to be read in tandem it would nowhere indicate any ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 or 506 of the IPC.“
The Court further added that it has become a habit to lay Sections 504 and 506 in every offence merely because they are non-cognizable.
It observed that the dispute was between the husband and wife so the breach of public peace can’t be accepted here. The Court thus held that the petitioner had recklessly invoked the provision, given the facts of the case.
Referring to Section 506 which deals with punishment for criminal intimidation, the bench held,
“The facts narrated hereinabove would clearly indicate that the dispute is a trivial squabble erupted between the husband and the wife. Where from ingredients of Section 503 can spring is a mystery and on such mystery Section 506 is also loosely laid against the petitioner. Therefore, the Investigating Officer could not have used Section 504 or Section 506 in the manner that it is roped in.”
The Court also added that the Investigating Officers should exercise caution even while laying down offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC since they are punishable with two years imprisonment.
“Therefore, it cannot be a frolicsome act, on the part of the Investigating Officer to simply bring in Sections 504 or 506 in a case where it does not have a speck of ingredients qua the said offences.“
Relying on the Apex Court’s decision in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., the bench said,
“Criminal proceedings are sought to be conducted on glorified trivialities between the husband and the wife. If criminal proceedings on such trivialit are permitted to continue, it would be putting a premium on such allegations made in every case.“
It also found inconsistencies in the complainant’s claims and noted that she delayed making accusations against her in-laws, suggesting potential ulterior motives.
The Court also added that it has become a norm these days for complainants to unnecessarily drag all the family members and in some cases, even the husband projecting trivial grievances, oblivious to the fact that these are criminal proceedings, mere pendency of which would have dire consequences on the family members, or any accused.
Advocate K S Patil represented the petitioner. On the other hand, HCGP V.S. Kalasurmath appeared for R1 and Advocate G.I. Gachinamath for R2.
News Source: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/karnataka-high-court-quashes-498a-ipc-case-trivial-dispute-between-husband-and-wife-238120
