Section 498A IPC Targets Only Grave Cruelty, Not Incompatibility Or Imperfect Marriages: Karnataka High Court
While quashing a 498-A IPC case registered by a woman against her husband and in-laws the Karnataka High Court said “The law does not criminalize incompatibility, nor does it punish imperfect marriages. Section 498A of the IPC is not a panacea for all matrimonial ills.”
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said that “It is a targeted provision meant to address grave cruelty, conduct so wilful and pernicious so as to imperil life, limb or mental health or even harassment tethered to unlawful demands of dowry. This is the purport of the provision - 498A.”
The court made the observation while allowing the petition filed by one Abuzar Ahmed and others. The police, based on the complaint filed by the petitioner's wife, had registered a case under Sections 498A and 504 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The woman and Ahmed got married on 25-08-2017. The couple then relocated to the United States of America, where Ahmed was gainfully employed. For nearly 6 years, the matrimonial life unfolded overseas, culminating in the birth of a child.
In January 2023, the complainant returns to India and thereafter, seeks to set the criminal law into motion, by registering a complaint for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 r/w 34 of the IPC, not only against her husband but also against the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in law.
The petitioners seeking quashing of the offence argued that if this complaint is permitted to continue, it would become a classic illustration of abuse of Section 498A of the IPC. On registration of crime a look out circular was also issued against the 1st petitioner which had stopped him from moving beyond the shores of the nation.
The complaint opposed the plea contending that the harassment by the husband or the in-laws is clearly brought out in the complaint. Investigation, at least, must be permitted to be continued.
The bench on going through the complaint said “A careful reading of the complaint reveals grievances such as dietary restrictions, expectations regarding attire, allocation of household responsibilities, disagreements over television preferences laced with a statement that the husband treated the complainant/wife as his servant. These allegations, even if accepted at face value, portray a portrait of marital discord, but fall woefully short of depicting the statutory cruelty contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC.”
Stating that minor skirmishes that happen in the family between the husband and the wife are projected to become a crime for offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC or even under Section 504 IPC.
The court said “It is shocking as to how without any preliminary inquiry as directed by the Apex Court in the case of LALITA KUMARI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [(2014)2 SCC 1], the complaint is even registered, by the jurisdictional police and above all, the husband is stopped from moving away from the shores of the nation on frivolous allegations.”
Noting that “There is neither an allegation of demand of dowry nor any conduct of such severity as would shock the conscience or satisfy the statutory threshold.”
The bench allowed the petition saying “The allegations in the case at hand, even at their highest, do not constitute the offence alleged, they are in fact inherently improbable. The continuation of investigation would serve no purpose other than to prolong harassment, stigmatize the petitioners and squander the precious time of criminal Courts. The issuance of a look out circular against the 1st petitioner, on allegations so tenuous, would only compound injustice. Therefore, to permit the criminal process to lumber forward would be to allow law to become a weapon rather than a remedy. I thus deem it appropriate to exercise my jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and obliterate the very registration of crime against these petitioners, to prevent it becoming an abuse of the process of the law and resulting in miscarriage of justice.”
Appearance:
Advocate SYED KHALEEL PASHA for Petitioners.
ADDL SPP B.N.JAGADEESHA, FOR R-1;
Advocate NAVEED AHMED, FOR R-2;
DSGI H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, FOR R-3
Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
Case Title: ABUZAR AHMED & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7053 OF 2024