Sections 85 & 86 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are a verbatim reproduction of Sec498A IPC:ApexCourt asks Centre to make necessary changes before new provisions come into force
Justices J.B. Pardiwala & Manoj Misra [03-05-2024]

Read Order: ACHIN GUPTA v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR [SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2379 OF 2024]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, May 6, 2024: While quashing a domestic violence case registered against a husband, the Supreme Court has opined that every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. The Top Court has also asked the Centre to consider making changes to Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The FIR, in this case, indicated that the Appellant and his family members were alleged to have demanded dowry and thereby caused mental and physical trauma to the First Informant. As stated in the FIR, the family of the First Informant had spent a large sum at the time of marriage and had also handed over her ‘stridhan’ to the Appellant and his family. However, shortly after marriage, the Appellant and his family started harassing the First Informant on the false pretext that she had failed to discharge her duties as a wife and daughter-in-law and also pressurised her for some more dowry. 

The Appellant was alleged to be an alcoholic and used to regularly raise his hands on the First Informant and treat her inhumanely.The First Informant was serving as an Assistant Professor and had alleged that the Appellant and his family would keep her entire salary. The Appellant would assault her whenever she would ask for money, saying that the First Informant should ask her family to bear her personal expenses.

It was also alleged that the Appellant continued with his extra marital affair for a long period & later filed a divorce petition in July 2019 on absolutely false and baseless grounds.The police carried out the investigation & proceeded to file a chargesheet only against the Appellant herein. A closure report was filed against the remaining 4 accused. The filing of the chargesheet culminated in the Criminal Case. The Appellant’s quashing petition was declined. Therefore, the appellant approached the Top Court.

The Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra was of the opinion that the plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet papers indicated that the allegations levelled by the First Informant were quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. No specific date or time of the alleged offence/offences had been disclosed. Even the police thought it fit to drop the proceedings against the other members of the Appellant’s family. Thus, it was opined that the FIR lodged by the Respondent No. 2 was nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition & also the domestic violence case.

“The First Informant remained silent for nearly 2 years after the divorce petition was filed. With such an unexplained delay in filing the FIR, we find that the same was filed only to harass the Appellant and his family members”, the Bench said while further adding, “There is nothing in the words of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which restricts the exercise of the power of the court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It would be a travesty of justice to hold that the proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has materialized into a chargesheet.”

If the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of her husband and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence the Court with a view to doing substantial justice should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter. 

“The Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends. In all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty”, the Bench said.

In view of such factual and legal aspects, the Bench reached to the conclusion that if the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue against the Appellant, the same would be nothing short of abuse of process of law & travesty of justice. Noting that the High Court should have exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings, the Bench allowed the appeal.

The Apex Court also observed that Sections 85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 which is to come into force with effect from 1st July, 2024 is nothing but a verbatim reproduction of Section 498A of the IPC. The only difference being that the Explanation to Section 498A of the IPC, is now by way of a separate provision, i.e., Section 86 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 

The Bench concluded the matter by observing, “We request the Legislature to look into the issue as highlighted above taking into consideration the pragmatic realities and consider making necessary changes in Sections 85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, before both the new provisions come into force.” 

The Top Court also directed the Registry to send one copy each of this judgment to the Union Law Secretary and Union Home Secretary, to the Government of India who may place it before the Law Minister for Law and Home Minister.