Supreme Court Quashes FIR for Stridhan Recovery: xxxx vs. xxxx (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 297

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Vineet Saran, J.

Can a wife pursue criminal charges against her husband and in-laws for not returning her Stridhan (dowry) years after separation, especially when the items have been offered back? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent case, examining the validity of such claims and the implications of delayed complaints in matrimonial disputes. This case highlights the importance of timely action in legal matters and the potential for misuse of criminal proceedings in family conflicts. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Vineet Saran, with the opinion authored by Justice Vineet Saran.

Case Background

The complainant (xxxx) and her husband (xxxx) married on July 28, 2007, in Delhi. They lived in Mumbai where they both worked. The couple separated on June 10, 2009. The husband filed a divorce petition in Mumbai on July 24, 2009, which is still pending.

After a gap of about three and a half years, on January 28, 2013, the wife filed a complaint in Delhi, seeking an FIR against her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law, alleging that they possessed her Stridhan articles. The police registered an FIR on October 29, 2014, under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

On June 16, 2015, the husband deposited the Stridhan articles and a Pay Order of Rs. 5,98,000 with the Investigation Officer. The wife refused to accept them, claiming the list was incomplete. A charge sheet was filed against the husband and mother-in-law on May 25, 2016. The wife submitted an additional list of Stridhan items on August 24, 2016, and again on December 5, 2016, after the husband had already deposited the items as per the initial list.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court, in its judgment dated October 12, 2018, addressed a writ petition seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court held that the proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC were time-barred, as the FIR was filed more than three years after the couple’s separation. However, it maintained that the offense under Section 406 of the IPC was a continuing offense, and the non-return of Stridhan gave a fresh cause of action each day. The High Court quashed the FIR under Section 406 IPC against the husband, as the entrustment of Stridhan was alleged only against the mother-in-law.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around two sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• 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.” This section is invoked when someone dishonestly misappropriates or converts property entrusted to them.
• Section 498A, IPC: This section addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman. It states, “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.” This section aims to protect women from domestic violence and harassment.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant (Husband and In-laws):

• The FIR was filed after a significant delay, more than three years after the separation, making the charges under Section 498A of the IPC time-barred.
• The Stridhan articles, as per the initial list provided by the wife, along with a Pay Order of Rs. 5,98,000, were tendered to the wife. When she refused to accept, it was deposited with the Investigation Officer.
• The additional list of Stridhan articles submitted by the wife in 2016 was an afterthought, filed after more than seven years of the divorce petition and three years after the initial list.
• There was no demand made by the wife for the return of Stridhan from her mother-in-law or husband, nor was there any refusal to return the same.
• The criminal complaint was a pressure tactic and an abuse of the process of the court.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent (Wife):

• The additional list of Stridhan items submitted later included items gifted by family and friends, as well as household items, which were not returned.
• The offense under Section 406 of the IPC is a continuing offense, and the non-return of Stridhan gives a fresh cause of action each day.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the following key questions:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC on the ground of limitation.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the offence under Section 406 of the IPC is a continuing offence.
3. Whether the allegations for non-return of Stridhan and charges under Section 406 of the IPC are sustainable in law.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Vanka Radhamanohari vs Vanka Venkata Reddy (1993) 3 SCC 4 – Supreme Court of India
• Arun Vyas vs Anita Vyas (1999) 4 SCC 690 – Supreme Court of India
• Asha Ahuja vs Rajesh Ahuja 2003 (68) DRJ 437 – High Court of Delhi
• S. K. Bhalla vs State of NCT of Delhi 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4384 – High Court of Delhi

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Delay in Filing the Complaint: The FIR was filed several years after the separation and the filing of the divorce petition, raising questions about the genuineness of the complaint.
• Tender of Stridhan: The husband had already deposited the Stridhan articles and money as per the initial list, indicating that there was no intention to misappropriate the property.
• Afterthought Claim: The additional list of Stridhan items submitted by the wife was considered an afterthought, filed after a significant delay.
• Abuse of Process: The Court viewed the criminal complaint as a pressure tactic, which amounted to an abuse of the process of the court.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the facts of the case. The Court noted that the husband had already deposited the Stridhan articles and money as per the initial list. The Court also noted that there was no demand for the return of Stridhan and that the additional list was an afterthought. The Court concluded that the filing of the criminal complaint was a pressure tactic and an abuse of the process of the court. The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Keeping in view that the husband-xxxx has already deposited the Stridhan articles, as given in the list by wife-xxxx on 28.01.2013, it cannot be said that the mother-in-law xxxx or the husband-xxxx ever wanted to keep the Stridhan articles, as well as the money, with them.”

“The subsequent list submitted by the complainant in 2016, of which reference has been made in the police report dated 09.01.2017, clearly appears to be an afterthought, as the same was filed after more than seven years of the filing of the divorce petition, and more than three years after the initial list was filed along with the complaint on 28.01.2013.”

“In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the allegations of the complainant- xxxx with regard to non-return of the Stridhan articles and the charges under Section 406 against the xxxx (or even against xxxx, xxxx and xxxx) are not sustainable in law. It clearly appears that the filing of the criminal complaint is a pressure tactic, having been employed by the complainant-xxxx against her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law, which is clearly an abuse of the process of Court, and is liable to be quashed in toto.”

Key Takeaways

• Criminal complaints for Stridhan recovery should be filed promptly after separation.
• If Stridhan is tendered back, subsequent claims for additional items may not be entertained.
• Courts may view delayed complaints as a pressure tactic and an abuse of the legal process.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of timely action in legal matters, particularly in matrimonial disputes.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR no. 390 of 2014 under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC and dismissed the appeal filed by the wife.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a criminal complaint for non-return of Stridhan is not sustainable if it is filed after a significant delay, especially when the Stridhan has been tendered back. This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings should not be used as a pressure tactic in matrimonial disputes. The Supreme Court did not explicitly overrule the High Court’s finding that Section 406 is a continuing offense but found that on the facts of the case, the charge was not sustainable.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR against the husband and in-laws, holding that the criminal complaint was a pressure tactic and an abuse of the legal process. The Court emphasized the importance of timely action in legal matters and the need to avoid using criminal proceedings as a tool in matrimonial disputes, especially when the Stridhan has been tendered back. This judgment provides clarity on the use of criminal law in cases of Stridhan recovery and sets a precedent for similar cases.

Category

Parent category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child categories: Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Criminal Law, Matrimonial Disputes, Stridhan

FAQ

Q: What is Stridhan?

A: Stridhan refers to the gifts and property a woman receives during her marriage, which she has absolute ownership over.

Q: What is Section 406 of the IPC?

A: Section 406 of the IPC deals with criminal breach of trust, which is when someone dishonestly misappropriates or converts property entrusted to them.

Q: What is Section 498A of the IPC?

A: Section 498A of the IPC addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about the FIR in this case?

A: The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, stating that the criminal complaint was a pressure tactic and an abuse of the legal process.

Q: What should one do if their Stridhan is not returned?

A: It is advisable to take prompt legal action and file a complaint soon after the refusal to return Stridhan. Delay in filing a complaint can weaken the case.

Q: What if the husband returns some of the Stridhan but not all?

A: The Court may consider the return of a substantial portion of Stridhan as a mitigating factor, and subsequent claims for additional items may not be entertained, especially if there is a significant delay.