Supreme Court quashes criminal charges against husband in matrimonial dispute: Abhishek Saxena vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) INSC 1088 (28 November 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1088

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar

Can a criminal case be sustained when the basic ingredients of the alleged offences are missing? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a matrimonial dispute where the husband was accused of voluntarily causing hurt, extortion, and criminal breach of trust. The Court examined whether the chargesheet disclosed the necessary elements to proceed with the criminal prosecution.

The Supreme Court, in this judgment, quashed the criminal proceedings against the husband, finding that the chargesheet lacked the necessary ingredients to support the allegations under Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The bench comprised Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, who delivered the unanimous judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) filed on 4 September 2016, by the second respondent (wife) against the appellant (husband), his parents, and relatives. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 363 (kidnapping), 384 (extortion), and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The chargesheet was subsequently filed on 22 August 2017, for offences under Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the IPC. The core of the dispute revolved around allegations of assault, demand for money, and misappropriation of property.

The appellant had filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and an application under Sections 7, 10, and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, on 16 May 2016, seeking guardianship of his minor daughter. The wife filed the FIR on 4 September 2016, alleging that the husband and his family had assaulted her, taken away her daughter, and demanded a ransom of ₹20,00,000. She also alleged that jewellery weighing 400 grams and ₹5,00,000 in cash were snatched from her.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, along with other accused, filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, seeking to quash the FIR, the chargesheet, and the summoning order. The High Court declined to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC and dismissed the petition concerning the appellant. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These sections are as follows:

• Section 323, IPC: This section deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. It states, “Whoever, except in the case provided by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
• Section 384, IPC: This section defines and penalizes extortion. It states, “Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” Extortion involves intentionally putting a person in fear of injury and dishonestly inducing them to deliver property or valuable security.
• Section 406, IPC: This section deals with the punishment for criminal breach of trust. It states, “Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” Criminal breach of trust involves the dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property entrusted to a person.

The Supreme Court examined whether the chargesheet contained the necessary ingredients to establish these offences against the appellant.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the chargesheet did not disclose the necessary ingredients to attract offences under Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the IPC.
• Regarding Section 323 of the IPC, the appellant contended that there was no material on record to support the allegation of voluntarily causing hurt, apart from a bald statement by the complainant.
• On Section 384 of the IPC, the appellant submitted that there was no evidence of intentionally putting the complainant in fear of injury to induce her to deliver any property.
• Regarding Section 406 of the IPC, the appellant asserted that there was no entrustment of property or dishonest misappropriation as required to constitute the offence.
• The appellant highlighted that the FIR was filed much after he had filed a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for the guardianship of his daughter, indicating a possible ulterior motive.

State’s Arguments:

• The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that the chargesheet disclosed a prima facie case against the appellant.
• The State contended that the allegations made by the complainant in the FIR and her statement to the Investigating Officer were sufficient to proceed with the trial.
• The State did not produce any additional material to substantiate the allegations of hurt, extortion, or criminal breach of trust.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the chargesheet submitted showed a prima facie case under Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the IPC against the appellant.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Pertaining to voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Pertaining to extortion.
• Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Pertaining to criminal breach of trust.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Pertaining to the inherent powers of the High Court.
• Sections 7, 10 and 17 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890: Pertaining to guardianship.

The Court did not cite any specific case laws in this judgment.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court examined Section 323, IPC* and found no material to support the allegation of voluntarily causing hurt.
• The Court examined Section 384, IPC* and found no evidence of intentionally putting the complainant in fear of injury to induce her to deliver any property.
• The Court examined Section 406, IPC* and found no entrustment of property or dishonest misappropriation as required to constitute the offence.
• The Court noted the appellant had filed a petition under Sections 7, 10 and 17 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890* prior to the FIR, indicating a potential motive for the FIR.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the order of the High Court and the criminal proceedings against the appellant. The Court held that the High Court had erred in not invoking its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings. The Court stated that the High Court was legally bound to see if the allegations constituted any offence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence in the chargesheet to support the allegations under Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the IPC. The Court emphasized the absence of material to prove voluntary hurt, extortion, and criminal breach of trust. The timing of the FIR, filed after the appellant’s guardianship petition, also raised concerns about the complainant’s motive. The Court prioritized the need to prevent the abuse of criminal proceedings in cases where the basic ingredients of the alleged offences are missing.

Sentiment Analysis Table:

Fact:Law Ratio Table:

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the legal aspects of the case, focusing on whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were met. The factual aspects, such as the timing of the FIR, played a supporting role in the decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered whether the chargesheet disclosed a prima facie case for the alleged offences. Upon analysis, the Court found that the chargesheet lacked the basic ingredients for the offences under Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the IPC. Therefore, the criminal proceedings were quashed.

The Court observed, “Having gone through the chargesheet, and the other material on record, we could not find necessary ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 323, 384 and 406 of the I.P.C. qua the appellant.”

The Court further noted, “As relates the alleged commission of offence under Section 323, IPC besides the bald statement of the second respondent-complainant ‘when I asked those people about my daughter, they beat up me’ no other material whatsoever is on record.”

The Court also stated, “In the absence of basic ingredient of entrustment of property and dishonest usage or disposal of any such property to satisfy the offence punishable under Section 406, IPC in the present case, the charge of commission of the offence thereunder also cannot be attracted.”

Key Takeaways

• Criminal proceedings can be quashed if the chargesheet lacks the basic ingredients to constitute the alleged offences.
• Courts should exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent the abuse of criminal proceedings.
• Matrimonial disputes should not be used as a tool to initiate criminal proceedings without sufficient evidence.
• The timing of the FIR and the underlying motive of the complainant can be considered by the courts.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the order of the High Court, the FIR, the chargesheet, and the summoning order against the appellant.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There are no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that criminal proceedings can be quashed if the chargesheet lacks the basic ingredients to constitute the alleged offences under Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the IPC. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent the abuse of criminal proceedings. This case reinforces the principle that criminal law should not be used to settle personal disputes without concrete evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Abhishek Saxena vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. highlights the importance of having sufficient evidence to support criminal charges. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant, finding that the chargesheet lacked the necessary ingredients to establish offences under Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the IPC. This decision underscores the need for courts to prevent the misuse of criminal law and to protect individuals from baseless prosecutions. The judgment also emphasizes the role of the High Court in exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings when the allegations do not constitute an offence.