Supreme Court Quashes Section 493 IPC Charges but Upholds Dowry Prohibition Act Charges in Arun Singh vs State of UP (10th February 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 10th February 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 139
Judges: Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Krishna Murari
Can a charge sheet be quashed if the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) do not constitute the alleged offense? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning charges under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court examined whether the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was justified in dismissing a petition to quash the charges. This judgment clarifies the requirements for offenses related to deceitful cohabitation and dowry demands. The bench comprised of Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Krishna Murari.

Case Background

The case began with a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Respondent No. 2 at Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly. The FIR, registered as case crime No. 431 of 2014, accused the appellants of offenses under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Respondent No. 2 alleged that the appellants had finalized a marriage proposal between his daughter, Jyoti, and Appellant No. 1 on June 30, 2013. Following this, a ring ceremony was held on July 21, 2013, and the wedding was scheduled for November 19, 2013.

It was alleged that Appellant No. 2 frequently visited Jyoti, misleading her into believing that only the final marriage ceremony remained. On August 16, 2013, Appellant No. 2 allegedly induced Jyoti into a physical relationship. Subsequently, the appellants allegedly demanded a dowry of Rs. 5 Lakh. When the complainant learned that Appellant No. 2 was engaged to another woman for a large dowry, the FIR was filed. The appellants, however, claimed that the complainant’s family changed their behavior after the wedding date was fixed, refusing to share expenses and demanding Rs. 10 Lakhs, threatening a false case if their demand was not met. They also stated that a compromise was reached at Mahila Thana, after which they did not pursue their complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC, but the complainant filed the FIR after 10 months.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants challenged the charge sheet filed against them in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The High Court dismissed the petition, directing the appellants to surrender before the court within 30 days. It further stated that if they applied for bail, it should be considered in view of the law laid down by the full bench of the High Court in Amrawati & another versus State of U.P., which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P.. The High Court found no justification to quash the charge sheet, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Section 493 of the IPC deals with “Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage.” It states:

“Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act outline the penalties for giving or taking dowry and for demanding dowry, respectively. Section 3 states:

“If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more…”

Section 4 states:

“If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees…”

Additionally, Section 8(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act specifies that every offense under this Act is non-bailable and non-compoundable.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the High Court failed to recognize that a fresh criminal action cannot be launched based on the same cause of action that was already settled by way of a compromise 10 months prior, which was acted upon by both parties.
• They contended that the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR), even if taken at face value, do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offense, let alone a cognizable one.
• The appellants submitted that the High Court did not consider whether the allegations in the FIR constituted any offense and dismissed the Section 482 CrPC petition without addressing this aspect.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the FIR was filed under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, both of which are non-compoundable offenses and therefore could not have been compromised.
• They submitted that the allegations in the FIR were substantiated during the investigation, leading to the filing of a charge sheet by the police.
• The respondents contended that the High Court was correct in dismissing the petition to quash the charge sheet.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to quash the charge sheet on the ground of compromise between the parties, given that the offenses under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable.
2. Whether the allegations made in the First Information Report (FIR) constitute the commission of an offense under Section 493 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

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?

• Gian Singh versus State of Punjab [CITATION]: The Court used this case to distinguish between compounding an offense and quashing criminal proceedings, emphasizing the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
• Parbatbhai Aahir & Others versus State of Gujarat & Others [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to reiterate the broad principles governing the exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
• Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab [CITATION]: The Court used this case to distinguish between offenses against society and those of a private nature, noting that offenses against society should be punished even if there is a settlement.
• Ram Chandra Bhagat Vs. State of Jharkhand [CITATION]: The Court used this case to analyze the essential ingredients of Section 493 IPC, highlighting the need for deceitful inducement of a belief of lawful marriage.

The Supreme Court held that the allegations in the FIR did not constitute an offense under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) because there was no allegation of deceit to induce the victim to believe she was lawfully married. However, the court found that the allegations did constitute an offense under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act because there were direct allegations of dowry demand. Therefore, the court quashed the charge sheet under Section 493 IPC but upheld the charge sheet under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Lack of Deceit for Section 493 IPC: The court emphasized that for an offense under Section 493 IPC, there must be a clear demonstration of deceit leading a woman to believe she is lawfully married. The FIR lacked such allegations, which was a critical factor in quashing the charges under this section.
• Public Interest in Dowry Prohibition: The court highlighted that offenses under the Dowry Prohibition Act are not merely private disputes but have a serious impact on society. This weighed heavily in the decision to uphold the charges under this Act, emphasizing the need to punish offenders for such crimes.
• Distinction between Compounding and Quashing: The court clarified that while offenses under the Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable, the High Court’s power to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC is different. However, this power must be exercised judiciously, especially in cases involving societal interests.
• Factual Analysis: The court undertook a detailed analysis of the factual allegations in the FIR, carefully examining whether they met the legal requirements of the offenses charged. This meticulous approach was crucial in differentiating between the charges under Section 493 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The court’s reasoning was a mix of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The court emphasized that the allegations in the FIR must specifically demonstrate the elements of the offense charged. The court highlighted the societal impact of dowry-related offenses, which influenced its decision to uphold the charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the facts and the application of relevant legal principles. The court did not find any alternative interpretation that could support the charges under Section 493 IPC based on the facts presented in the FIR. The final decision was reached by meticulously examining the ingredients of each offense and comparing them with the allegations in the FIR.

The court’s decision was to quash the charge sheet under Section 493 IPC, while upholding the charge sheet under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. This decision was based on the lack of allegations of deceit for Section 493 IPC and the presence of allegations of dowry demand under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

“The essence of an offence under Section 493 IPC is, therefore, practice of deception by a man on a woman as a consequence of which the woman is led to believe that she is lawfully married to him although she is not and then make her cohabit with him.”

“A reading of the above provisions shows that essential ingredients of the offence under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are that the persons accused should have made demand directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardians of a bride or a bridegroom as the case may be any dowry and/or abets the giving and taking of dowry.”

“In view of the above facts and discussions, we are of the considered view that insofar as offence under Section 493 I.P.C. is concerned, since F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of any offence under the said Section and thus continuance of the criminal prosecution under said section would amount to abuse of process of the Court and the order of the High Court to that extent is liable to be set aside.”

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Specific Allegations in FIRs: The judgment emphasizes that FIRs must contain specific allegations that meet the essential ingredients of the offenses charged. Vague or general allegations will not suffice.
• Distinction between Deceit and Breach of Promise: For an offense under Section 493 IPC, there must be a clear allegation of deceitful inducement to believe in a lawful marriage. A mere breach of promise to marry is not sufficient.
• Societal Impact of Dowry Offenses: The court reiterated that dowry-related offenses are not merely private disputes but have a significant impact on society. This underscores the importance of prosecuting such offenses to deter future crimes.
• Judicial Scrutiny of FIRs: The judgment highlights the importance of judicial scrutiny of FIRs to ensure that criminal proceedings are not initiated without a proper basis, and that the High Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the charge sheet against the appellants under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) be quashed. However, the charge sheet under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was upheld, and the appellants would face trial for these offenses.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for an offense under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to be established, there must be a clear allegation of deceit leading a woman to believe she is lawfully married, and a mere breach of promise is not sufficient. Additionally, offenses under the Dowry Prohibition Act are considered to be against society and not merely private in nature, thus requiring a stricter approach. This judgment clarifies the requirements for offenses under Section 493 IPC and reinforces the societal importance of prosecuting dowry-related offenses.

Conclusion

In the case of Arun Singh & Others vs. State of U.P. through its Secretary & Another, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, quashing the charge sheet against the appellants under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) while upholding the charge sheet under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found that the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) did not meet the essential ingredients of an offense under Section 493 IPC, as there was no allegation of deceit to induce the victim to believe she was lawfully married. However, the court held that the allegations of dowry demand were sufficient to constitute an offense under the Dowry Prohibition Act. This judgment underscores the need for specific allegations in FIRs and reinforces the societal importance of prosecuting dowry-related offenses.