In a very strong disapproval of the growing rampant misuse of lodging criminal case over petty quarrels by resorting to Section 498A of the IPC by the wife on the husband and his relatives, the Bombay High Court has in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Ramesh Sitaldas Dalal & Anr vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 137 of 2021 and cited in Neutral Citation No. : 2023:BHC-AS:34459-DB that was reserved on September 29, 2023 and then finally pronounced on November 9, 2023 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction has quashed an FIR that was lodged against an elderly couple accused of harassing the estranged wife of their adopted son held in no uncertain terms that petty quarrels do not amount to cruelty. It must be noted here that while coming down heavily on the Mumbai police, a Bench of Hon’ble Smt Justice Anuja Prabhudessai and Hon’ble Mr Justice NR Borkar slammed the investigation holding that the investigation is “biased, malafide and is a gross abuse of the process of law”. We must certainly note that the Bombay High Court in its landmark order laid down precisely that to prove the offence of harassment under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, it has to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously or persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Smt Justice Anuja Prabhudessai for a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice NR Borkar and herself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “The petitioners aged 80 and 75 years respectively, who are the parents-in-law of respondent No.2 have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the First Information Report No.152 of 2020 registered with Malabar Hill Police Station, for offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 406, 323, 506(ii) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench while dwelling on key facts envisages in para 3 that, “The brief facts necessary to decide this petition are as under:-
The respondent No.2 and Deepak, the adopted son of the petitioners were school friends and they continued their friendship beyond schooling days. Deepak pursued his career in Hotel Management and is employed in Dubai, whereas respondent No.2 is a professional dancer. Their friendship eventually turned into love and they decided to enter into matrimonial ties. The father of the respondent no.2 did not approve of the relationship initially but later relented as his wife supported the decision of their daughter. The respondent No.2 has stated that Deepak had told her before the marriage that he was the adopted son of the petitioners. Her parents came to know that the lady working for the petitioners was the biological mother of Deepak, however, it was too late to cancel the wedding since the invitation cards were already distributed and other arrangements were already made.”
Quite forthrightly, the Division Bench mandates in para 14 propounding that, “In the instant case, the FIR was filed on 26/09/2020 for the alleged harassment by the petitioners during the one month stay of respondent No.2 in the matrimonial home in the month of June-2018. The narratives in the FIR of Deepak being adopted son, the inter-se relationship between the petitioners or their relationship with the biological mother of Deepak and further the fact that the petitioner no.2 was a divorcee, and her marriage with the petitioner no.1 was the second marriage, are totally irrelevant to decide the question of cruelty and proceedings under Section 498A of Cr.P.C. The other allegations against the petitioners viz. that they taunted the respondent no.2, looked at her with a smirk on his face, that they did not allow her to touch the refrigerator etc. even if accepted in their entirety do not constitute ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Section 498-A of IPC.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 15 that, “The FIR does not prima facie disclose an element of deception or dishonest inducement to make out a case of cheating. Apart from the omnibus allegation that the petitioners and their son have not returned the gold ornaments, the FIR as well as the other material on record does not prima facie reveal that the said ornaments were entrusted to the petitioners and that they had refused to return the same or had dishonestly mis-appropriated the same or converted the same to their own use. On the contrary, the allegations in the FIR are that on 13/11/2019 the respondent No.2 and her father had gone to Dubai to collect her belongings. Respondent No.2 has stated that her husband gave some of the belongings but did not return gold and diamond jewelry and other valuable items. In such circumstances, the FIR and the other material on record also do not disclose offence under Section 420 and 406 of the IPC.”
Most forthrightly, the Division Bench points out in para 26 that, “There is absolutely no material on record to indicate that the bank accounts and FDs of the petitioners had any nexus with commission of any offence. The Investigating Officer as well as the learned APP has not been able to give any plausible or valid reason to freeze the bank accounts/F.Ds of the petitioners and further they have not been able to demonstrate that the seizure was reported to the Magistrate forthwith, as mandated under sub section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C. The action, which is totally high handed and arbitrary gives an impression of unfairness and/or ulterior motive.”
Most commendably, the Division Bench then expounds in para 27 mandating that, “It is also pertinent to note that this Court by order dated 22.01.2021 had directed the Investigating agency not to file the chargesheet qua the petitioners without leave of the Court. Despite the said order, the Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet on 11.11.2022 without there being any material to show their involvement in the said crime. Suffice to say that the role of the Investigating Officer is not to favour or disfavour any person, but to unravel the truth in exercise of powers and procedure stipulated in Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. No doubt the Investigating Officer is not required to go into the truthfulness or genuineness of the allegations in the FIR or the other material collected in course of the investigation. Yet, the Investigating Officer does not have unfettered discretion to brand an innocent person as an accused, to file chargesheet and send him for trial, unless uncontroverted allegations and material collected in course of the investigation raise a suspicion that the person is involved in commission of a cognizable offence. In the absence of such prima facie material, compelling an innocent person to approach the Court for discharge, quashing or to go through a trial and thereby subjecting him to mental trauma, humiliation, stigmatization and loss of reputation would imperil his personal liberty, which is sacred and sacrosanct . Hence, the investigation which is said to be the backbone of criminal justice system, should at all time be fair, proper and in accordance with constitutional guarantees and legal provisions.”
More to the point, the Division Bench candidly holds in para 29 that, “The Apex Court has time and again emphasized that right to a fair investigation is a facet of a fair trial guaranteed to every accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the instant case, despite there being no prima facie material to show the involvement of the petitioners in commission of any cognizable offence, they have been dragged in a matrimonial dispute, justifying their grievance that their implication was for ulterior motive. Furthermore, freezing of the bank accounts was manifestly arbitrary and against the mandate of law. By such drastic and high handed action, the Investigating Officer compelled the petitioner to beg and borrow money from their relatives for their survival and sustenance, striking at the very right to live with human dignity.”
While pooh-poohing the utter shoddy and arbitrary manner in which the investigation was conducted by the investigating officer, the Bench pulls back no punches to hold quite forthrightly in para 30 that, “The conduct of the Investigating Officer in filing the chargesheet in breach of order dated 22/01/2021 also gives rise to a suspicion that the investigation is tainted and far from being fair and impartial. The Investigating Officer Rohini Jaykar Dhere, Assistant Police Inspector, attached to Malabar Hill Police Station, Mumbai has stated in her affidavit that the chargesheet was filed due to oversight and inadvertence. The explanation appears to be far from the truth. The arbitrary manner in which the investigating agency has investigated this case indicates that the action of the Investigating Officer was to overreach the order of the Court which cannot be countenanced and in fact needs to be deprecated.”
As a corollary, the Division Bench then minces just no words in observing in para 31 that, “The aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the investigation qua the petitioners is biased, malafide and is gross abuse of process of law. In our considered view, the case falls squarely in categories (1) and (5) set out in Bhajanlal (supra). Under the circumstances, and in view of reasons, supra this is a fit case to quash the proceedings qua the petitioner. We have rendered findings relating to false and malafide implication of both the petitioners, despite being aware that the petitioner no.2 is deceased. We are of the considered view that this is necessary to clear the name, image and reputation of petitioner no.2, albeit her having passed away.”
Finally, the Division Bench then succinctly concludes by directing in para 32 that, “Hence the petition is allowed. The First Information Report No.152 of 2020 registered with Malabar Hill Police Station, and the consequent charge-sheet CC/502/PW/2022, pending before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai, are quashed qua the petitioners. The bank accounts/Fixed Deposits in the names of the petitioners are ordered to be de-freezed. The parties are at liberty to apply before the trial court for release of the jewellery and other items lying in the lockers. In the event such application is filed by either of the parties, the learned Magistrate shall decide the same in accordance with law. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai to make necessary entry in the service record of the Investigating Officer Rohini Jayker Dhere, for filing the chargesheet despite the order of the Court.”
All told, we thus see that the Bombay High Court Division Bench has made it indubitably clear in this notable judgment that petty quarrels certainly do not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC. The Court also very rightly quashed the case against the elderly couple that had been registered against them. The Bench also minced just no words to criticize the biased, tainted and mala fide investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer and so also for his high-handedness which cannot be justified somehow or anyhow! There can be no gainsaying that it is high time and Centre must at least now without fail in the penal laws that it is just on the verge of changing to usher in new laws make the necessary amendments in rape laws and dowry laws which are misused many times by women and her relatives by falsely implicating the men and his parents and relatives which should certainly no longer now go unpunished, unaccounted and unhindered any longer and those lodging vexatious and false complaints must be made to pay very huge compensation and should be jailed also for a term of two to three years at least and similarly where the Court finds clearly that the investigating officer intentionally conducts a mala fide and biased investigation to deliberately frame innocents must be punished most strictly! No denying it!
