Misuse Of 498A IPC : Supreme Court Requests Parliament To Amend Corresponding Section In Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Raising serious concerns about the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code proceedings against the husband and in-laws by the wife, the Supreme Court on Friday (May 3) requested the Parliament to bring out necessary changes to the new IPC i.e., Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) which contained provisions such Section 85 and 86 akin to Section 498A of IPC.

“We request the Legislature to look into the issue as highlighted above taking 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.”, bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stated.

The court noted that the text of the new provisions in BNS is nothing but a verbatim reproduction of Section 498A of the IPC, except with a difference 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.

Also, in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) court had flagged concern about the reflection of exaggerated versions of the incidents in the Section 498A complaints and invited the attention of the legislature to bring changes to the provision while taking into consideration the pragmatic realities and public opinion.

“It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law.”, the court said in Preeti Gupta's case.

Taking the lead from Preeti Gupta's case, the judgment authored by Justice JB Pardiwala directed the registry of the Supreme Court that the copy of the judgment be placed before the Union Home Minister and Union Minister of Law & Justice.

“We direct the Registry 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 Hon'ble Minister for Law and Justice as well as the Hon'ble Minister for Home.”

Background of the case

A divorce case was filed by the husband against the wife citing cruelty. In response to the divorce case, an FIR under Sections 323, 406, 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the husband by the wife.

The High Court refused to quash the criminal case against the husband by not invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

According to the High Court, the case against the accused didn't qualify  category 7 of the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal Judgment to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the case the accused, which states that "where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

Against the High Court's decision refusing to quash the criminal case arising out of Section 498A of IPC, the husband approached the Supreme Court.

Criminal Proceedings Initiated With Oblique Purpose Ought To Be Quashed By High Courts

At the outset, the court observed that after reading out the FIR/complaint in its entirety, if it is found that the criminal proceedings were initiated with an oblique purpose just to harass the accused, then it is incumbent upon the High Court to exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings.

"We are of the view that the category 7 (Bhajan Lal's case) referred to above should be taken into consideration and applied in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. 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 cognizable 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.", the court observed

"For the foregoing reasons, we have reached to the conclusion that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the Appellant, the same will be nothing short of abuse of process of law & travesty of justice. This is a fit case wherein, 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.", the court added.

Based on the above premise, the court quashed the criminal case against the accused/appellant.

The Court also directed the police to not apply Section 498A IPC mechanically in all complaints filed by wives.

"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. In all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty."

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Yusuf, AOR

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Chritarth Palli, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Grover, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vikas Gupta, AOR

 Case Title: ACHIN GUPTA  VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 343

Click here to read/download the Judgment