The Karnataka High Court has quashed a complaint registered against a man by his wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code because he refused to give money to buy necessities for performing a pooja.
The Court observed that the wife’s allegations in the complaint did not meet the essential ingredients required to invoke Section 498A (cruelty) against the husband.
“The complaint is so vague as it would fetter vagueness itself. The investigation has led to filing of the charge sheet, without rhyme or reason, fortunately leaving out the parents, in the charge sheet. It is filed only against the husband and against the husband what is found is as afore-quoted. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 498A is recklessly and loosely laid against the petitioner.“
It is a marital dispute case between the petitioner and the complainant (the wife) who have been married for 15 years and also have a 14-year-old son.
The wife filed a complaint against the petitioner and other family members and accused them of various offences including Section 498A (cruelty to a married woman) of the IPC. On registration of the crime, the Police did their investigation and a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner.
The Charges, however, against all the other family members were dropped. Consequently, the petitioner also approached the court to seek quashing of all proceedings against him.
The petitioner argued that the complaint didn’t possess essential elements of the alleged offences under Sections 498A, 504, and 506 of IPC. While, the wife contended that although the complaint might be poorly worded, it did contain allegations against the petitioner.
The bench perused the complaint and noted that the wife had asked the petitioner for money to buy certain materials for a pooja which the petitioner did not agree to. It was the rejection that was framed as a quarrel between the parties.
The Court said, “what would unmistakably emerge is certain skirmishes between the husband and the wife, which happen, if not daily, but quite often, is projected to become the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC.“
It was noted that Section 498A requires cruelty causing grave injury or danger to life. The complaint was about a trivial dispute between the spouses over the refusal of money to the wife for a religious ritual, which appeared insufficient to qualify as cruelty.
Section 504 and 506 (deals with insult and criminal intimidation) were also invoked without valid grounds, considering the nature of the allegations.
Regarding the complaint and the chargesheet the bench held, “If the complaint in its entirety and the summary of the charge sheet are juxta-posed, to be read in tandem it would nowhere indicate any ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 or 506 of the IPC.“
The Court also added that it’s become common to lay Sections 504 and 506 in every offence merely as they are non-cognizable.
It also observed that the dispute was between the husband and the wife so the breach of public peace cannot be applied here. The Court thus, held that the petitioner had recklessly invoked the provision, given the facts of the case.
Referring to Section 506 which deals with punishment for criminal intimidation, the bench held,
“The facts narrated hereinabove would clearly indicate that the dispute is a trivial squabble erupted between the husband and the wife. Where from ingredients of Section 503 can spring is a mystery and on such mystery Section 506 is also loosely laid against the petitioner. Therefore, the Investigating Officer could not have used Section 504 or Section 506 in the manner that it is roped in.“
The Court also added that the Investigation Officers should exercise caution even while laying down offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC since they are punishable with two years’ imprisonment.
“Therefore, it cannot be a frolicsome act, on the part of the Investigating Officer to simply bring in Sections 504 or 506 in a case where it does not have a speck of ingredients qua the said offences.“
“Criminal proceedings are sought to be conducted on glorified trivialities between the husband and the wife. If criminal proceedings on such trivialities are permitted to continue, it would be putting a premium on such allegations made in every case.“
It also observed inconsistencies in the claims of the complainant and noted that she delayed making accusations against her in-laws, suggesting potential ulterior motives.
It further added that it has become a norm these days for complainants to involve all the members of the family and in some cases, even the husband projecting trivial grievances, oblivious to the fact that these are criminal proceedings, mere pendency of which would have dire consequences on the family members, or any accused.
Subsequently, it allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the husband.
Advocate K S Patil appeared for the petitioner. HCGP V.S. Kalasurmath represented respondent 1 and Advocate G.I. Gachinamath appeared for respondent 2.
News Source: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/karnataka-high-court-quashes-498a-ipc-case-trivial-dispute-between-husband-and-wife-238120