Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 323, 406, 498A and 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – The contents of the FIR (dated 09.04.2021) indicated that appellant-husband and his family members had allegedly demanded dowry and thereby caused mental and physical trauma to the first informant-wife (respondent no.2) – After investigation, police filed chargesheet only against appellant – Appellant sought quashing of criminal proceedings – High Court declined to quash the same – Correctness:

Held: Appellant and respondent no.2 got married in 2008 – Appellant filed a divorce petition in July 2019 – However, same was later withdrawn as appellant was finding it difficult to take care of his child, while travelling to Court on the dates fixed – Appellant’s mother had filed a domestic violence case against the respondent no.2 in october 2020 under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Allegations levelled in the FIR were vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct – FIR has no specific date or time of the alleged offences – In view of this Court, FIR in question was a counterblast to the divorce petition and also domestic violence case – The FIR was lodged on 09.04.2021, nearly 2 years after filing of the divorce petition by appellant and 6 months after filing of the domestic violence case by her mother-in-law – There is no explanation for delay in filing FIR – According to the Court, it was only filed to harass the appellant and his family members – 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. [Paras 16-19, 36]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:

Held: It is 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 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 Code of Criminal Procedure – 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. [Para 20]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Exercise of power under s.482 – Prevention of abuse of the process of the Court:

Held: 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 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. [Para 21]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – No restriction on exercise of power – Stages of FIR, investigation and chargesheet:

Held: 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. [Para 22]

 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – General and sweeping allegations – Matrimonial dispute – Duty of Court:

Held: 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. [Para 25]

Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A – Matrimonial dispute – Determining cruelty – Consequence of technical and hyper sensitive approach:

Held: 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 – 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. [Para 32]

Legislation – Suggestions by Court – Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss. 85 and 86:

Held: Sections 85 and 86 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are verbatim reproduction of section 498A of the IPC – Attention was brought to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand – Request made to the Legislature to look into the issue and 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. [Para 40]