It definitely cannot be glossed over by anyone that one after the other we see that different High Courts and so also the Apex Court are raising their most serious concern on the gross abuse of Section 498-A of IPC to the extent that Calcutta High Court even went to the extent in its judgment titled Swapan Kumar Das vs State of West Bengal & Anr in CRR No. – 2455 of 2018 with CRR No. – 2864 of 2018 that was pronounced as recently as on August 21, 2023 to observe unequivocally that, “The legislature has enacted the provision of Section 498A to strike out the dowry menace from the society. But it is observed in several cases that by misusing of said provision new legal terrorism is unleashed.” I am most ashamed, most aghast, most astonished and most appalled to read recently such cases one after the other! It is high time and Centre must at least now take some inspiration from this most learned judgment and amend our penal laws to make it a punishable and non-bailable offence if a woman files false cases under Section 498A of IPC before enacting the latest penal laws which have been amended by Centre but are yet to come into effect! This will definitely act as a strong deterrent to a women to refrain from indulging in legal terrorism only if a fixed jail term of at least an year is strictly imposed on her if she dares to lodge a false case! This brooks no more delay any longer!
It must be asked: How long will men only be made a scapegoat compelled to suffer immensely, immeasurably and indefinitely because of draconian Sections like 498A of IPC? It cannot be an endless wait for innocent men made to suffer for being born as a men! No denying it!
While flagging the rampant and gross misuse of Section 498-A of IPC, the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in its learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Rajan Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 35596/2018 & 16764/2019 that was reserved on August 3, 2023 and then finally pronounced on August 17, 2023 has commented most sharply on the gross misuse of Section 498A pertaining to cruelty to women of the IPC observing without mincing any words that, “Nowadays there is a “package of five cases” being filed by the wife against the husband and his family members in family court and the criminal court under IPC, the Hindu Marriage Act and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.” The Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Rusia has added that Section 498A of the IPC, which is meant to punish cruelty by a husband or his relatives, is being misused nowadays as also observed by several High Courts and the Supreme Court. It must be mentioned here that the Court was hearing applications to quash a first information report (FIR) accusing a husband and his relatives of the offence under Section 498A IPC (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and causing hurt.
It certainly deserves mentioning that the Court ultimately quashed this criminal case finding no substance in the serious charges and termed it as a case of “reverse cruelty” upon the accused. While observing that the complainant-woman was residing abroad while pursuing criminal cases against family members in India, the Judge lamented that, “Now a day it is very common for the husband and wife to reside or do jobs outside of India and their parents are made to suffer in India by way of criminal or matrimonial litigation.” The FIR was registered by a woman against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband’s sister-in-law.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising of Hon’ble Shri Justice Vivek Rusia sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The applicants have filed these petitions u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR No.139/2018 registered on a complaint made by respondent No.2 alleging commission of offence u/s. 498-A, 323 and 34 of the IPC at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore. The petitioner in M.Cr.C. No.16764/2019 has also sought quashment of the proceedings in Cr. Case No. 878/2019.”
While giving an introduction of the parties and prosecution version, the Bench lays bare in para 2 that, “Applicant No.1 is the father of Kartik Mathur R/o and Applicant No.2 is the wife of Daksh Mathur (the elder son of Applicant No.1). Smt. Meera Mathur is the wife of applicant No.1. Respondent No.2/the complainant is a daughter of SHRI SARVESH MATHUR. Respondent No.2 and Kartik Mathur (younger son of Applicant No.1) were married following Hindu rites and rituals in Indore on 22.06.2017.
The prosecution story
Respondent No.2, lodged an FIR on 29.7.2018 at Police Station Mahila Thana Indore disclosing that at the time of marriage, her parents spent Rs. 50 to 60 Lakhs and they also gave gold and silver ornaments to the applicants. Her husband Kartik Mathur and his parents demanded Rs.1,00,000/- for the arrangement of an AC bus, at the time of marriage which her father had given. She went to her matrimonial house in Gurgaon. Thereafter she went with her husband to Shimla for a honeymoon. Parents of Kartik Mathur i.e. Rajan Mathur and Smt. Meera Mathur and Smt. Nandita Mathur W/o. Daksh Mathur also reached Shimla to spoil the honeymoon. the complainant further alleges that they all ill-treated by way of taunting her for the demand of Rs.10 Lakhs and a car. Thereafter, they all came back to Gurgaon. On 30.6.2017, Kartik Mathur left for Australia disclosing that he is unhappy with her as her parents did not fulfil the demand. She remained with her in-laws in the matrimonial house for a few days. She was beaten and thrown out of the house on 30.7.2017. Thereafter, she came to Indore and lodged the FIR on 29.7.2018 i.e. after one year.”
As we see, the Bench then points out in para 3 that, “The aforesaid FIR was registered against her husband – Kartik, father-in-law – Rajan Mathur (applicant No.1), mother-in-law – Smt. Meera Mathur (applicant) and wife of Kartik’s brother (‘Jethani’) – Nandita Mathur (applicant No.2 ) u/s. 498-A, 323 and 34 of the IPC. The police sent notice u/s. 41A of the Cr.P.C. to the applicants for their appearance in the Police Station for investigation. Rajan Mathur sent a detailed e-mail questioning the registration of FIR at Indore when no offence was said to have been committed at Indore.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 that, “By way of these M.Cr.Cs. the applicants are seeking quashment of the FIR and the proceedings of the criminal case inter alia on the ground that none of the parties have ever resided at Indore. Indore was only a venue for the marriage. The applicants are permanent residents of Gurgaon and the parents of respondent No.2 are residents of Navi Mumbai (Maharashtra). Merely the venue of the marriage was Indore, hence the selection of a Police Station at Indore for registration of the FIR u/s. 498A, 323 and 34 of the IPC where no offence said to have been committed is nothing but the intention to harass the applicants. It is further submitted that Respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house as per her own will and since then she is residing in Navi Mumbai now in Australia. There is a delay of the period of one year in lodging the FIR. Family settlement proceedings were initiated by Kartik Mathur in the Family Court in Victoria, Australia. It is further submitted that applicant No.1 Rajan Mathur is a retired Air Force Officer and Smt. Nandita is his daughter-in-law, and wife of Daksh Mathur who is Lt. Col. an Army Officer. Applicant No.2 usually resides with her husband and was temporarily residing with her in-laws as her husband is posted in the forward areas of Jammu and Kashmir. She has unnecessarily been dragged into these proceedings. The allegation of demand of dowry of Rs.10 Lakhs and a car is totally false and baseless. The applicants have specifically alleged that on 24.6.2017 i.e. 2nd day of marriage, respondent No.2 turned away and disclosed that she was having a relationship with a boy before marriage. It is further submitted that after the marriage, respondent No.2 sent a mail to her husband Kartik in which there was no such allegation of demand of dowry. Therefore, on this ground alone, the FIR, which is nothing but sheer abuse of the process of law, is liable to be quashed.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 6 that, “The applicant /Smt. Meera Mathur, mother-in-law of respondent No.2 has also filed M.Cr.C. No.16764/2019 seeking quashment of the FIR. In this petition, respondent No.2 has filed the reply through Power of Attorney holder Sarvesh Mathur ( father), whose residential address is at B 503, Crystal Court, CHS, Sector 7, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai. After execution of the Power of Attorney dated 21.12.2018, respondent No.2 travelled to Australia on 28.12.2018. At present, she is residing in Australia and contesting the case before the Session Court Indore as well as this High Court.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 7 that, “So far as the allegations in the FIR are concerned, according to respondent No.2, the parents of Kartik demanded Rs.10 Lakhs and a car during her stay in the matrimonial house. Her Father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law (‘Jethani’) used to taunt her for the demand of Rs.10 Lakhs and a car. She was thrown out of the house on 30.7.2017 after beating her. Thereafter she came to Indore at her parents’ house. Her parents tried to resolve the dispute but the parents of Kartik were adamant about the demand of Rs.10 Lakhs and a car. According to her, she was subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty. Accept oral evidence there is nothing on record to corroborate her statement to establish the charge of 498-A of the I.P.C.”
It cannot be glossed over that the Bench then points out in para 8 that, “There is a delay of one year in lodging the FIR for which there is no explanation. So far the jurisdiction is concerned only the marriage was solemnized at Indore. Respondent No.2 only gave an address but there is no material to support that she or her father is an ordinary resident of Indore. Even if it is believed that they have some connection in Indore but as per the allegation in the FIR none of the offences are said to have been committed in Indore. Applicants are permanent residents of Gurgaon and the parents of the complainant are permanent residents of Navi Mumbai (Maharashtra). As per the contents of the FIR, the entire allegation about the demand of dowry and commission of atrocities in the matrimonial house at Gurgaon. Nothing happened after leaving the matrimonial house on 30.7.2017 in Indore. Therefore, the FIR at Police Station Mahila Thana at Indore has wrongly been registered.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 9 that, “So far as the commission of the offence under Section 323 of the IPC is concerned, there is only an oral allegation about the assault. There is no MLC on record. The delay of one year in lodging the FIR has not been explained. The allegation of demand of dowry of Rs.10 Lakhs and a car against father-in-law, mother-in-law and ‘Jethani’ are general in nature.”
Most remarkably, the Bench observes in para 10 that, “Nowadays the very purpose of the insertion of Section 498-A in the Penal Code, 1860 with the object to punish the husband or his relatives, has been defined. In most of the cases, this section is being misused as observed by several High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar : [(2014) 8 SCC 273] has observed that the relatives are unnecessarily being made accused under section 498-A of the I.P.C.”
While citing the relevant Apex Court ruling, the Bench then hastens to add in para 11 stating that, “The cases are lodged under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 only to settle the matrimonial dispute. Sometimes the FIR wife lodges the FIR immediately after receipt of the summons from the Family courts. Nowadays there is a package of 5 cases against the husband and family members in family court and the criminal court under I.P.C., the Hindu Marriage Act and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand : [(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.””
It would be germane to note that the Bench notes in para 12 that, “The Courts have experienced that on the general and omnibus allegations the family members and distant relatives are being roped in a case arising out of Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860, which was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP : [(2012) 10 SCC 741]. The cases related to distant relatives were further considered and deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana : [(2018) 14 SCC 452].”
Quite forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 13 that, “Taking guidance from the above-mentioned cases where there is apparent misuse of Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 the High Court should exercise the power conferred under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to protect the relatives of the husband in matrimonial dispute in order to do the complete justice and prevent misuse of the process of law.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench observes in para 17 that, “At present, the husband and wife both have settled in Australia. The parents of the husband are being harassed by way of the criminal case in India. Applicant No.1 Rajan Mathur is aged about 67 years and his wife is also a senior citizen. General allegations have been levelled against ‘Jethani’ hence she has unnecessarily been dragged in the FIR. As per the contents of the FIR, the husband of respondent No.2 was not even in India at the time of so-called omission of crime. Respondent No.2 has given the Power of Attorney to her father to contest the case against these applicants. This is now a case of reverse cruelty upon them. There is no specific allegation that when her husband left India for Australia there was any demand for dowry, etc. Nowadays it is very common for the husband and wife to reside or do jobs outside of India and their parents are made to suffer in India by way of criminal or matrimonial litigation.”
Finally and as a corollary, the Bench concludes by holding in para 18 that, “In view of the foregoing discussion, these M.Cr.Cs. deserve to be and hereby allowed. The impugned FIR is hereby quashed and consequently, the charge sheet as well as the proceedings in the criminal case are also hereby quashed. Let a photocopy of this order be retained in the file of connected M.Cr.C.”
In sum, the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has very rightly in para 8 pointed out a huge delay of one year in lodging FIR. It has also very rightly flagged the growing abuse of Section 498-A IPC. When Centre can amend our penal laws and if no punishment is provided to women who lodges false FIR and false cases against men, his parents and their relatives then what is the point of amending penal laws and hailing it as a revamp of our laws? In other words, the overhaul in penal laws can serve their true purpose only when such rampant abuse of laws is most strictly punished so that no one is able to indulge in legal terrorism as pointed out recently by Calcutta High Court!
Sanjeev Sirohi,