Supreme Court quashes FIR against in-laws in dowry harassment case: Kahkashan Kausar vs State of Bihar (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 8th February 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 112
Judges: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari. The judgment was authored by Justice Krishna Murari.

Can in-laws be prosecuted based on vague and general allegations of dowry harassment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a wife had filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws. The court emphasized the need for specific allegations against each accused, cautioning against the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This judgment highlights the importance of protecting individuals from unwarranted harassment in matrimonial disputes.

Case Background

The complainant, Tarannum Akhtar (also known as Soni), married Md. Ikram on September 18, 2017. On December 11, 2017, she filed a criminal complaint against her husband and in-laws, alleging dowry demands and harassment. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court, Purnea, found no specific allegations against the in-laws and issued summons only against the husband under Section 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The dispute was resolved, and the wife returned to her matrimonial home.

However, on April 1, 2019, the wife filed another written complaint, this time for registration of an FIR against her husband and in-laws under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, and 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC. She alleged that the accused were pressuring her to purchase a car as dowry and threatened to terminate her pregnancy if the demands were not met. The husband and in-laws then filed a criminal writ petition before the Patna High Court for quashing of the said FIR, which was dismissed. The High Court stated that the FIR disclosed a prima facie case and required police investigation. The in-laws then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the police should have conducted a preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. & Ors. [(2014) 2 SCC 1].
• They contended that the allegations in the FIR were similar to those in the 2017 complaint, where the court found no specific case against them.
• They submitted that the FIR was filed with a revengeful intent to harass them.
• They relied on Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar & Anr. Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law And Justice & Ors. [(2018) 10 SCC 443], which highlighted the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC.

State of Bihar’s Arguments:

• The State of Bihar argued that the 2019 FIR was based on fresh offenses committed after assurances were given by the husband not to harass the wife.
• They contended that the new FIR was distinct and independent and not a repetition of the earlier complaint.
• They argued that an investigation was carried out and the case was found true against all accused persons, making Lalita Kumari (Supra) inapplicable.

Complainant Wife’s Arguments:

• The complainant argued that the FIR was challenged by only five of the seven accused, implying acceptance by the husband.
• She contended that the allegations in the FIR were corroborated by oral and documentary evidence collected during the investigation.
• She submitted that the allegations were serious and that she had been repeatedly tortured for dowry.
• She relied on Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. [(1999) 3 SCC 259], stating that the court should not quash a complaint if a prima facie case is made out.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the allegations made against the in-laws (Appellants) are general and omnibus in nature and therefore liable to be quashed?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court referred to Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. & Ors. [(2014) 2 SCC 1]* to highlight the need for a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR in certain cases, but did not apply it directly as the investigation was already complete.
• The Court relied on Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar & Anr. Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law And Justice & Ors. [(2018) 10 SCC 443]* to emphasize the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC and the need to prevent harassment through frivolous complaints.
• The Court referred to Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. [(1999) 3 SCC 259]* to highlight that a complaint should not be quashed if a prima facie case is made out, but distinguished the case as the allegations against the in-laws were found to be general.
• The Court cited Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. [(2018) 10 SCC 472]* to show concern over the misuse of Section 498A and the tendency to file complaints over trivial issues.
• The Court cited Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. [(2014) 8 SCC 273]* to highlight the misuse of Section 498A as a weapon by disgruntled wives to harass husbands and their relatives.
• The Court relied on Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. [(2010) 7 SCC 667]* to highlight the tendency to file complaints under Section 498A over trivial issues and the need for caution in dealing with such complaints.
• The Court cited Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 741]* to emphasize that courts should not encourage matrimonial litigation where all family members are roped in.
• The Court used K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana [(2018) 14 SCC 452]* to highlight the need for caution in proceeding against distant relatives in matrimonial disputes based on omnibus allegations.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Misuse of Section 498A IPC: The court was deeply concerned about the increasing misuse of Section 498A of the IPC, where relatives of the husband are often implicated without specific allegations. This concern is evident in the repeated references to previous judgments that highlighted this issue.
• General and Omnibus Allegations: The court emphasized that the allegations against the in-laws were general and omnibus, lacking specific details about the role each individual played. This lack of specificity made it unjust to subject them to a criminal trial.
• Protection Against Unwarranted Harassment: The court underscored the need to protect individuals from unwarranted harassment in matrimonial disputes. It noted that a criminal trial, even if it ends in acquittal, can inflict severe scars on the accused.
• Need for Specificity in Allegations: The court stressed that allegations must be specific and distinct, particularly in cases involving multiple accused persons. This ensures that each individual is held accountable for their actions and not merely implicated due to their relationship with the husband.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the facts and arguments, set aside the Patna High Court’s order and quashed the FIR against the in-laws. The court reasoned that the allegations made against the in-laws were general and omnibus, lacking specific details about each individual’s role in the alleged offenses. The court emphasized that “no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them.”

The court highlighted the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC, noting that “it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.” The court also observed that “false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law.”

The court’s decision was based on the principle that general and omnibus allegations cannot lead to a criminal trial, and that each accused must have a specific role attributed to them. The court stated that “allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.”

Key Takeaways

• Need for Specific Allegations: In dowry harassment cases, allegations against in-laws must be specific and distinct, detailing the role each individual played. General and omnibus allegations are not sufficient for prosecution.
• Caution Against Misuse of Section 498A IPC: The court has cautioned against the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for settling personal scores in matrimonial disputes.
• Protection from Unwarranted Harassment: Individuals should be protected from unwarranted harassment through criminal trials based on vague allegations.
• Importance of Preliminary Inquiry: Although not directly applied in this case, the judgment reinforces the need for preliminary inquiries in certain cases before registering an FIR.
• Impact on Future Cases: This judgment sets a precedent for lower courts to be more cautious when dealing with complaints under Section 498A of the IPC, ensuring that in-laws are not automatically implicated without specific evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and quashed the FIR against the in-laws (Appellants) under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 IPC.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that general and omnibus allegations against in-laws in a dowry harassment case are not sufficient to warrant prosecution. Specific and distinct allegations detailing the role of each individual are necessary. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that Section 498A of the IPC should not be misused to harass family members and also reinforces the need for caution in proceeding against distant relatives in matrimonial disputes based on omnibus allegations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kahkashan Kausar vs. State of Bihar provides a significant clarification on the application of Section 498A of the IPC in matrimonial disputes. By quashing the FIR against the in-laws due to the lack of specific allegations, the court has emphasized the need for caution and specificity in such cases. This ruling serves as a reminder that the law should not be used as a tool for harassment and that each individual must be held accountable for their specific actions.