Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Husband’s Relatives in Dowry Harassment Case: Safiya Bano vs. State of U.P. (2024) INSC 166 (30 January 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 30 January 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 166
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
Can a criminal case against a husband’s family be dismissed if the allegations of dowry harassment are vague and lack specific details? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a wife filed a complaint against her husband and his relatives. The court examined whether the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the FIR against the husband’s relatives. This judgment clarifies the importance of specific allegations in cases of dowry harassment under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, with the opinion authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute between a wife (Respondent No. 2) and her husband and his family (the Appellants). The wife filed an FIR against her husband and his relatives, alleging offences under Sections 498A (dowry harassment), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 494 (bigamy), and 377 (unnatural offences) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The husband and wife had a marriage on 8th August 2014, but they lived together for only a few days. The wife alleged that she was harassed by her husband and his family for dowry. The husband filed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Subsequently, the wife filed the FIR against the husband and his family. There was an attempt to settle the matter between the husband and wife, which included a settlement agreement. However, the wife later changed her mind and did not proceed with the settlement.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants, who are the husband’s relatives, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court rejected their petition, stating that the allegations in the FIR disclosed the ingredients of an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued notice and granted time to the appellants to file additional documents regarding mediation. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR against the husband’s relatives.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

The appellants had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states:
“482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that the allegations made against them in the FIR were general and vague.
• They contended that there was no specific allegation of ill-treatment against any of them.
• The appellants submitted that the FIR was filed only to harass the husband and his family after the husband filed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
• They pointed out that there was an attempt to settle the matter, as evidenced by the settlement agreement between the husband and wife.
• They relied on the settlement agreement, particularly clauses (1) and (6), to show that the wife had received compensation and agreed not to make any further claims.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondents:

• The respondents argued that the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the FIR as the averments made in the petition disclosed the availability of ingredients for an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The respondents did not specifically challenge the averments made by the appellants that the FIR was filed to harass the husband and his family.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues, but the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the FIR against the husband’s relatives when the allegations were general and lacked specific details.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The Court relied on the legal provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court analysed the allegations in the FIR to determine if they met the criteria for an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and found that the allegations were general and bald, lacking specific details.
• The Court used its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the FIR against the husband’s relatives to prevent abuse of the process of law.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of specific allegations against the husband’s relatives in the FIR. The Court noted that the allegations were general and did not specify any acts of cruelty or harassment by the appellants. The Court also considered the fact that the FIR was filed after the husband had filed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and there was an attempt to settle the matter between the husband and wife. The Court emphasized that the proceedings against the husband could continue, but the FIR against the relatives should be quashed due to the absence of specific allegations.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that general and vague allegations are not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized that there should be specific allegations of cruelty or harassment against each individual accused. The Court also considered the fact that the FIR was filed after the husband had filed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, which raised doubts about the wife’s intentions. The Court noted that there was an attempt to settle the matter, which further supported the view that the FIR was filed to harass the husband and his family. The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The allegations made against the present appellants, who are the husband’s relatives are general in nature, wherein it is stated that the appellants harassed her and demanded dowry. No specific allegation of ill treatment is made against any of the appellants.”

“Insofar as the present appellants are concerned apart from the general and bald allegations, there is not even a whisper as to how the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 498A of IPC are made out against the present appellants.”

“It appears that thereafter respondent No.2 changed her mind and did not proceed with the settlement.”

Key Takeaways

• General and vague allegations are not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Specific allegations of cruelty or harassment are required against each individual accused.
• FIRs filed against the husband’s relatives can be quashed if the allegations are general and lack specific details.
• Courts may consider the timing of the FIR and any attempts to settle the matter when deciding whether to quash an FIR.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 321 of 2019 against the present appellants shall stand quashed and set aside. The proceedings against the husband would continue in accordance with law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an FIR against the husband’s relatives under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be quashed if the allegations are general and lack specific details. This judgment reinforces the need for specific allegations in cases of dowry harassment and prevents the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This is a reiteration of the existing position of law and does not introduce any new principle.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR against the husband’s relatives, emphasizing that general and vague allegations are not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court’s decision underscores the importance of specific allegations in cases of dowry harassment and protects individuals from being subjected to criminal proceedings based on vague accusations. The proceedings against the husband will continue in accordance with law.