Tolerance Is Foundation Of Marriage But Wife's Family Often Makes Mountain Out Of Mole, Courts Must Be Wary Of False FIRs: Gujarat High Court
Setting aside an FIR lodged by a woman alleging dowry demand and cruelty by her husband and his family members, the Gujarat High Court emphasized that while tolerance should be foundation of a sound marriage, but often in such cases it is found that the family of the wife makes a "mountain out of a mole". In its 44 page judgment a single judge bench of Justice Divyesh A Joshi noted that...
Setting aside an FIR lodged by a woman alleging dowry demand and cruelty by her husband and his family members, the Gujarat High Court emphasized that while tolerance should be foundation of a sound marriage, but often in such cases it is found that the family of the wife makes a "mountain out of a mole".
In its 44 page judgment a single judge bench of Justice Divyesh A Joshi noted that many times in such cases, the parents and close relatives of the wife make a "mountain of a mole". It thereafter said, “instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings about complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues".
The Court added that the first response of the wife, her parents, and her relatives often involves approaching the police, believing it to be the "panacea" to all problems. However, "no sooner" the police is involved, it can destroy fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses.
The Court thereafter stressed, “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.”
Court should discern oblique motive of including husband's, relatives' name in FIR
Justice Joshi further said that if the court is "convinced" that the woman's involvement of her husband and his close relatives was with an "oblique motive", then even if the FIR and chargesheet discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the court, in the interest of substantial justice, "should read between the lines to discern the oblique motive" of the complainant and take a "pragmatic view" of the matter.
“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," the high court underscored.
Matrimonial dispute between spouses, family members roped in 'as usual'
Noting the allegations in the FIR, the high court said that the matrimonial dispute seemed to be between the husband and the wife, "wherein as usual, all the family members have been roped in as accused persons".
It thereafter said, "It is an admitted position of fact, which can be supported by above facts that the applicants are residing separately and 16 months prior to registration of the impugned FIR, the respondent no.2 (complainant woman) is residing at her parental home, which she has specifically stated in the FIR itself and thus, it can safely be said that the applicants are involved in the aforesaid offence as they are close relatives of the main accused – husband".
Ingredients of alleged offences in FIR not made out
Pointing to the facts of the case and the allegations in the FIR, the high court noted that the ingredients of the alleged offences including IPC Sections 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and criminal intimidation ,as well as provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act were not fulfilled in relation to the applicants–the "close relatives" of the main accused – the husband.
The court's decision came in response to plea filed by the husband and his relatives against a 2019 FIR registered on the wife's complaint. The couple married in 2017 and had a girl child during their union.The brother-in-law of the wife argued that he was working in Vadodara at the time of the alleged incidents. The plea described the FIR as a retaliatory move by the wife, following the husband's application to the Family Court for her return. Notably, she had left the marital home 16 months before filing the FIR.
The wife's FIR accused her husband, his parents, brother, and sister of mental and physical harassment after their marriage, allegedly due to insufficient dowry. She alleged that she tolerated the abuse to save her marriage. She further alleged that the harassment continued after the birth of their daughter and that she was eventually driven out of her matrimonial home.
When can S. 482 inherent power be invoked
Referring to the Supreme Court's judgement in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab (1960) the high court said that whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to get the FIR quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious, or instituted with the "ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance" and in such cases the court owes a duty to scrutinise the FIR with "care and a little more closely".
The High Court thereafter said, “We are saying so for the simple reason that if the wife on account of matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband and his family members then the first thing, she would ensure is to see that proper allegations are levelled in the First Information Report. Many times the services of professionals are availed for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However, that does not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are allegations in the First Information Report and the chargesheet papers disclose the commission of a cognizable offence".
It further questioned why the investigating agency did not file a chargesheet against the other co-accused if the allegations in the FIR were to be accepted. It pointed out that allegations were levelled not only against the husband but also against his parents, brother, and sister. If the police did not deem it fit to file a chargesheet against the other co-accused, that high court said, indicated that even the investigating agency was convinced that the FIR was an outburst arising from a matrimonial dispute.
Hypersensitive approach would be disastrous for the marriage
It thereafter underscored that the courts must appreciate that all quarrels are to be weighed from the view of determining–"what constitutes cruelty in each particular case", keeping in mind the physical as well as 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,” the Court highlighted.
The Court expressed that instead of handling the issue delicately, initiating criminal proceedings would only bring about hatred between the parties. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family towards the wife, with varying degrees of severity, it said.
Children often main sufferers
It further said that often in matrimonial disputes, children are the main sufferers. It further added, "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".
Police machinery to be used only in genuine cruelty cases
However, it cautioned that the police machinery should be used as a last resort and only in genuine cases of cruelty and harassment. The police should not be used to hold the husband at ransom, allowing the wife to exploit the situation at the instigation of her parents, relatives, or friends. Not every instance of annoyance or trivial irritation between spouses constitutes cruelty, and Section 498A of the IPC should not be applied mechanically in every case where a wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment.
While concluding the Justice Joshi observed that after examining the facts in its entirety the FIR is "nothing but an sheer abuse of the process of law and if the same is allowed to be continued, in that invent, it would be nothing short of abuse of process of law and travesty of justice" .
Finding it a fit case to invoke the court's inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC, the high court allowed the husband and the relatives' plea and quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising out of it.
Case Title: X and Others. Versus State Of Gujarat & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 104