By Adv. R. S. Agrawal 

 

IN THE judgement of the case- Smt. Vrushali Jayesh Kore (40) v. the State of Maharashtra and Sow. Deepali Bhushan More, delivered on January 7, 2023, Justice Anuja Prabhudessai and Justice R.M. Joshi, at the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, have observed that the First Information Report (FIR) in the present case, is a classic example wherein the family members of the husband have been implicated in proceedings under section 498A of the IPC, as an instrument to settle personal score with the husband.

In view of this, the HC has stated that these unfounded proceedings, to the extent of relating to the applicant are needed to be quashed to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, to protect the right of the applicant and thus to secure the ends of justice.

The applicant herein is a married sister of the husband of the respondent- Deepali More (30). The marriage between Deepali and the brother of the applicant was solemnised on April 19, 2019. Deepali left her matrimonial home on June 7, 2019. She lodged FIR on November 12, 2019 against her husband, his parents and applicant alleging that they had subjected her to physical and mental cruelty within the meaning of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.

Prima facie the FIR disclosed that there is a rift in marital ties between the Deepali and her husband, the brother of the applicant herein. The applicant had been dragged into the matrimonial dispute with allegations that - (i) On May 18, 2019, she (the applicant) ordered chicken Biryani for her brother but told Deepali to cook her own food. (ii)When the respondent-Deepali visited the applicant, she was told to get ready in an unused wash room. (iii) The applicant had told Deepali not to raise her voice against her parents.

(iv) The applicant had phoned the brother of Deepali and told him that they should keep Deepali at her parental house at Jalgaon and that Deepali should seek divorce. (v) The applicant told the brother of Deepali that her behaviour was not acceptable to them and that she should mend her ways to continue to live in the matrimonial home. (vi) The applicant, who is a judicial officer, ought to have intervened in the dispute between Deepali and her husband impartially rather than being biased supporting her brother and blaming her. (vii) The applicant posted a comment on her WhatsApp status congratulating her brother for finding a new girl in his life and advising him to forget the past and start a new life.

According to the HC, these accusations even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence justifying investigation against the application (or applicant?). This case is fully covered by categories (1) and (3) as enumerated by the Supreme Court in is judgment of the case – State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajanlal and others- AIR 1992 SC Cases 335, wherein the SC has laid down the guidelines that must be adhered to while exercising its inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the FIR.

In category (1) of these guidelines the cases covered are where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if those are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. Category (3) covers cases wherein the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

It is pertinent to note that unfounded criminal charges and long drawn criminal prosecution can have serious consequences. A person subjected to such litigation suffers immense mental trauma, humiliation and monetary loss. Reckless imputations can also result in serious repercussion on career progression and future pursuits and most importantly it stigmatises reputation, brings disrepute and lowers the image of a person amongst friends, family and colleagues. It is to be noted that loss of character or bruised reputation cannot be restored even by judicial reprieve.

As Shakespeare has famously said that “Good name in, dear my lord, is immediate jewel of their souls! Who steals my purse steals trash; ‘tis something nothing ‘Twas mine, ‘tis his, and has been slave to thousands; but that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed.” In legal parlance, right to reputation and dignity of an individual is held to be an integral part of Articles 21 and 19(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, it is imperative for the Court to exercise power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in fit cases, to safeguard and protect the rights of every person subjected to such litigation and prevent misuse of criminal process for personal vendetta.

Since the FIR in question emanates from matrimonial dispute, it would be relevant to refer to the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar and others- (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that “incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention.

However, 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 498-A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.” The Supreme Court has warned the courts, through its judgements from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband, when no prima facie case has been made out against them. In the circumstances, the High Court has allowed the application.

Consequently, First Information Report (FIR) of November 12, 2019 registered with Ramanand Police Station in Jalgaon District for offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 406, 504,506 read with section 34 IPC and section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and RCC No. 66/2021 pending on the file of JMFC, Jalgaon, stand quashed and set aside qua the applicant.