According to Justices M. S. Karnik and ValmikiMenezes, JJ. of the Division Bench of High Court of Bombay at Goa on the 23rdof August, 2024 in a Criminal Writ Petition bearing the neutral citationnumber: 2024:BHC-GOA:1498-DB, there was sufficient justification to invokeCategory 7 of the ratio specified in the Stateof Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], while quashing an FIRfrom the year 2022 which had been registered at the Women’s Police Station,North Goa, and which was thereafter framed into a ChargeSheet in 2023 againstthe Husband for alleged having committed the offences under Section 498-A, readwith Section 34 IPC.
Category 7 in Bhajan Lal’s (supra) Caseenunciated:
“…7.Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or wherethe proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreakingvengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private andpersonal grudge”
Notwithstanding the generality of Section 498-A,the division bench in 2024:BHC-GOA:1498-DB have aptly cited the followingjudgment of the Apex Court:
“24.In Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State ofMaharashtra [(2002) 5 SCC 177 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 971], examining the scope ofthe Explanation, the Supreme Court has held as follows:
“3. The basic purport of the statutory provisionis to avoid "cruelty" which stands defined by attributing a specificstatutory meaning attached thereto as noticed hereinbefore. Two specificinstances have been taken note of in order to ascribe a meaning to the word"cruelty" as is expressed by the legislatures: whereas
Explanation (a) involves threespecific situations viz.
(i) to drive thewoman to commit suicide or
(ii) to cause graveinjury or
(iii) danger to life,limb or health, both mental and physical, and thus involving a physical tortureor atrocity, in
Explanation (b) there is absenceof physical injury but the legislature thought it fit to include only coerciveharassment which obviously as the legislative intent expressed is equally heinousto match the physical injury:
whereas one is patent, the other one is latentbut equally serious in terms of the provisions of the statute since the samewould also embrace the attributes of "cruelty" in terms of Section498-A.”
Further, the division bench of Justices M. S.Karnik and Valmiki Menezes, in the recently disposed Criminal Writ Petitionhave aptly cautioned against the vexatious tendency of initiating protractedcriminal litigation under the allegation of Cruelty.
23. The Hon’bleSupreme Court observed the approach the Courts should have whilst exercisingits inherent powers in matters of quashing complaints alleging offences underSection 498-A has laid down certain broad parameters for consideration;
In PreetiGupta v. State of Jharkhand [2010 CrLJ 4303 (1)]
“30. It is a matter of common experience thatmost of these complaints under Section 498ʨ IPC are filed in the heat of themoment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a largenumber of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed withoblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine casesof dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
32. Unfortunately,at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences arenot properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead toinsurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and hisclose relations.
33. The ultimate object of justice is to findout the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out thetruth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency ofimplicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. ʨttimes, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult toascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautiousin dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities intoconsideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations ofharassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different citiesand never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant residedwould have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaintare required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. Experiencereveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony andbitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter ofcommon knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or thehusband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruinthe chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering isextremely long and painful.” Preeti Gupta (supra).
Justices M. S. Karnik and Valmiki Menezes, JJ. ofthe Division Bench of High Court of Bombay even examined the entire contents ofthe FIR to ascertain the legal propriety of the allegations against the husbandwho was the petitioner:
“37.As held in Achin Gupta (supra), we would be obliged to also examine thecontents of the FIR, to ascertain whether the same has been filed with anintention to wreak vengeance on the Petitioners for the pending proceedingsbefore the parties and whether the filing of the complaint is a pure abuse ofthe criminal process, to achieve this end.”
And accordingly, the hon’ble Division Bench ofthe High Court of Bombay in Goa in Criminal Writ Petition(2024:BHC-GOA:1498-DB) arrived at the considered opinion that in terms of thepronouncements of the Supreme Court in the case law cited above, theallegations made in the complaint did not partake of an offence under Section498A. (p. 34).
