While setting the record straight and not pulling back any punches, the Jharkhand High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Umesh Kumar and Others vs The State of Jharkhand and Another in Cr.M.P. No. 257 of 2012 that was pronounced as recently as on July 6, 2023 has said without mincing any words that the Supreme Court and several High Courts have observed the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to cruelty against woman by her husband or his relatives. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi said without mincing any words that the Supreme Court on numerous occasions has previously expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A and the increasing tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial dispute without analyzing the long term ramifications of it. We must note here that the Court made the observation while dealing with a petition that had been filed by brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law of a woman who had lodged a criminal complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj against her husband and his relatives. The court took note of the irrefutable fact that the complaint contained general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners, without specific details about the nature of the alleged torture.
How horrible! Yet it is always men, men and men alone who are vilified! Giving a blank cheque only to women and always believing women’s version only is most preposterous and most dangerous! I very strongly believe that the ruthless, reprehensible, rubbish and rampant misuse of laws meant for safety of weapons as most powerful weapons to extort huge amount of money cannot be lightly dismissed by anyone and definitely should never go unpunished, unhindered and unaccounted for! This leading case law stand as a living testimony to the irrefutable fact that women can no longer be always trusted and men only be always blamed for everything!
I really just shake my head in disbelief and wonder why a woman and her relatives are not punished mandatorily when they file false dowry cases against men, file false POCSO cases against men, file false rape cases against men and why men is treated as a culprit always with no remedy even after the false case is proved? I am really at a complete loss to comprehend that why men is left with no remedy in such cases and why women and her relatives enjoy unfettered liberty to file false cases and yet most happily escape unpunished, unaccounted and lead a free life again under the sun? Why should women and her relatives who connived in filing false cases not be jailed for trying to ruin men’s life completely at least for a few years if not whole life so that they can also themselves witness what it means to be in jail?
Needless to say, the least that can be done is to jail them at the very least for so many years as a men is punished for such cases filed falsely by women and her relatives? How long will men be exposed to facing punishment for a crime which he never committed and how long will women and her parents and relatives would be given the free run to file as many cases as they want and yet even after being proved that they were false not be sent to jail? Of course, it certainly merits no reiteration that this definitely must be seriously debated, discussed and deliberated upon by the expert committee which is dwelling on the various changes to be made in our criminal penal laws. No denying it!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 29.09.2011 passed in connection with P.C.R. No.123 of 2010, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 3 that, “The complaint case was filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2 alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with one Piyush Srivastava on 19.02.1999 at Jhansi (U.P.) and after her marriage, she along with her husband was living peaceful conjugal life for several years, but suddenly the behaviour of her husband changed towards her and he used to quarrel with her on flimsy ground and some time, he used to assault her with fists and slaps. The reason behind such behaviour of her husband was cleared when he demanded a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs for giving her decent living in his house. The complainant’s family members already paid Rs.2,50,000/- on his demand and at the time of her marriage, her family members had also given her golden ornaments of 25 Bhari. It was further alleged that other accused persons always visited Sahibganj alongwith others and instigated him to demand that amount from her family and in the event of refusal to pay that amount they even told him to divorce her by legal process. They lastly visited Sahibganj on 11.04.2010. The complainant and her family members tried their level best to reconcile the matter, but other accused persons always instigated her husband to cut-off all relation with her and even divorce her and on the basis of this statement, P.C.R. Case No.123 of 2010 was registered.”
As it turned out, the Bench then points out in para 6 that, “In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record including the complaint petition as well as solemn affirmation and finds that so far as these petitioners are concerned, only general and omnibus allegations are there and in spite of that the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioners. What are the nature of torture made by these petitioners, has not been disclosed in the complaint petition as well as in the solemn affirmation. The learned court has taken cognizance against the husband of opposite party no.2 only vide order dated 08.09.2010 and only after remand of the matter by the learned Sessions Judge, the learned court has further taken cognizance against all the accused made in the complaint petition.”
Most notably, we must note that while citing the relevant case law, the Bench lays bare in para 7 that, “Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives, however, nowadays, the said Sections is being misused which has been observed by several High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. When the relatives are unnecessarily made accused under the said Section, that was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & another; [(2014) 8 SCC 273].”
While citing another relevant case law, the Bench specifies in para 8 that, “How the case are lodged under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code at the heat of the moment, that was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta & another v. State of Jharkhand & another; [(2010) 7 SCC 667] . Paragraphs 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:
“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.””
Do note, the Bench notes in para 9 that, “The concern of the Court was further there in the cases on the general and omnibus allegations where the family members are roped in case arising out of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra & another v. State of UP & another [(2012) 10 SCC 741].”
Further, the Bench states in para 10 that, “The cases related to distant relatives was further subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana; [(2018) 14 SCC 452].”
It cannot be glossed over that the Bench observes in para 11 that, “The above mentioned cases clearly demonstrate that the Court at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and increase of tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial dispute without analyzing the long term ramification of a trial on a complaint.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 12 that, “Coming back to the facts of this case, it appears that the petitioners who happened to be brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, there are general and omnibus allegations against them and the learned court has taken cognizance after remand of the matter by the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge has also observed that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and the learned court was not having any option and he has taken cognizance against the petitioners.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench mandates in para 14 that, “Considering that general and omnibus allegations are there, so far as these petitioners are concerned, for the reasons and analysis, as stated hereinabove, the Court finds that it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”
As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 15 that, “Accordingly, so far as these petitioners are concerned, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 29.09.2011 passed in connection with P.C.R. No.123 of 2010, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj is quashed.”
For sake of clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 16 that, “It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with the complaint case as well as the order taking cognizance so far as husband of the complainant is concerned and trial against the husband will proceed, in accordance with law.”
Finally, the Bench concludes by holding in para 17 that, “Accordingly, this petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of.”
All told, it is high time and our lawmakers must definitely now rise to the occasion and amend the penal laws to meet the present circumstances. Also, it must be ensured that those women and her relatives who misuse the anti-dowry laws like Section 498A of IPC and so also rape laws and other laws meant for safety of women and girls like POCSO must be definitely sent behind bars for the term which a men would have been sentenced if he was convicted of the offence. It definitely cannot be denied by anyone that women who is now overshadowing men in each and every sphere of life cannot be allowed to always have the free run to file false cases, have the last laugh and yet escape without being made to pay huge penalty and a jail term also so that no women or her relatives can ever dare to misuse such penal laws that are meant for the protection of women and not for being misused against men and his relatives either to extract money or to settle personal scores or to pressurize accused! It must be definitely underscored that this rampant abuse of laws by women and her parents and relatives definitely deserves to be punished most strictly so that the men and his relatives and parents don’t suffer endlessly for no fault of theirs. It brooks no more delay now and our law makers must definitely act most promptly in this direction! Let’s fervently hope so! It is really good to note that Jharkhand High Court too has been most forthright in acknowledging the gross misuse of Section 498-A of IPC in this leading case which was enacted only to ensure that a women is protected and a husband or his relatives are punished for cruelty but what is happening on the ground in most of these cases is just the reverse and that is what all like minded people favouring impartial justice must be most concerned of! No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi