False cruelty cases under Section 498A ruining marriages SC NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court said false complaints under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code against innocent inlaws alleging cruelty and harassment at matrimonial homes were increasingly making the husbands adamant not to take back their wives. For no fault, the in laws, especially old parents of the husband, are taken to jail the moment a false complaint is filed against them by a woman under Section 498A. By roping in inlaws without a reason and for settling a score with the husband, the false and exaggerated 498A complaints are causing havoc to marriages, said a bench of Chief Justice H L Dattu and A K Sikri. These comments assume significance as it has been a trend with the apex court to seek response from the husband on a mere mention of a petition by a woman in matrimonial disputes. The court also readily transfers a matrimonial case to a place convenient to the wife, brushing aside protests from the husband. Dismissing a womans petition, who had appealed against a trial courts decision not to permit her lead evidence against the two brothers of her husband, the CJI said, There is an increasing hardening of stand among husbands, whose parents had been arrested in false 498A cases, not to take back the wife. They say they are willing to give her all the property, they will take care of the childrens education and marriage but will not take her back. The CJI added, They take a plea before the court that they may have committed a mistake but for that punishing their old parents on a false complaint was not condonable. The false complaints under Section 498A are ruining marriages. When the counsel said the courts observations might be true in some cases, the bench retorted, It is true in most cases. But the court was quick to clarify that it was not giving a certificate to erring in laws. The court had some advice for women who file complaints under Section 498A. When you file complaints under Section 498A, be circumspect and truthful. Do not drag old parents if they had no role in causing any harassment to you. You unnecessarily involve old people in your complaint, you end up ruining the marriage, it said. Recently, the Supreme Court had ruled that even a single false dowry complaint against the husband and in laws was sufficient ground for courts to grant decree of divorce to annul the marriage. Allowing dissolution of marriage between K Srinivas and K Sunita last month, the court had said, We unequivocally find that the respondent wife had filed a false criminal complaint, and even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty. We accordingly dissolve the marriage of the parties. WEDNESDAY, 10 DECEMBER 2014 AGENCIES The above observations were reported by TOI and Kashmir Monitor newspapers but the name of the case was not given. I made a search and reached the conclusion that the Honble Court made the observations in the following matter:- ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9584/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24/09/2014 in CRL M No. 26316/2014 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) SARABJIT KAUR Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for directions and exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and permission to file additional documents and office report) Date :08/12/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Deepak a Masih, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Patra, Adv. Mr. R.N. Keshwani,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Dismissed. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] Court Master Asstt. Registrar Digitally signed by Charanjeet Kaur Date: 2014.12.08 17:37:46 IST The judgment of the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh against which the aforesaid SLP was filed is given below:- CRM No.29316 of 2014 in/and CRM No.M-26316 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.29316 of 2014 in/and CRM No.M-26316 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.09.2014 Sarabjit Kaur .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. J.S.Lalli, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Harsimrat Rai, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.2. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. CRM No.29316 of 2014 Allowed as prayed for and documents are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 20.05.2014 (Annexure P-12) passed by the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in Criminal Revision No.82 of 13.12.2013 and further for setting aside the order dated 17.09.2013 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, in FIR No. 145 dated 22.06.11 under sections 406, 498-A, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana, whereby, the application under section 319 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for summoning the additional accused has been dismissed by the courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that bo th the courts below have committed error in dismissing the application u/s 319 of Cr.P.C, for summoning the accused namely Randir Singh son of Ranjeet Singh, Amandeep Kaur w/o Randhir Singh, Nirmal Kaur w/o Avtar Singh, Avtar Singh s/o Ranjeet Singh, Harpreet kaur w/o Babbu Bhambra, Babbu Bhambra s/o Harbans Singh, Inderpal Singh & Kirpal Singh, in FIR No.145 dated 22.06.2011, u/s 406, 498-A,323 IPC, P.S. Focal Point, Ludhiana. The learned counsel further contends that there is prima facie evidence against all the accused, but both the courts below have ignored the evidence available against the proposed accused. Lastly, he contends that application u/s 319 of Cr.P.C may be allowed and all the above accused may be ordered to be summoned as Additional accused to face trial in the case. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record very carefully with their able assistance. Section 319(1) of Cr.P.C reads as under:- “319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence:- (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence , it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.” It is settled law in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1) Recent Criminal Reports 623 (SC), that the Court has vast powers to summon any person as an additional accused. But these powers have to be exrcised sparingly and cautiously in rare case. In this case, FIR was registered on 22.06.2011, u/s 406, 498-A of the IPC, after thorough probe, by the Women Cell, against the husband. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint on the same set of allegations not only ag ainst the husband, but also other relatives of the husband, as stated above. On 18.04.2012, a report u/s 173 of the Cr.P.C was filed against husband Kultar Singh only. On 17.09.2013, the complaint filed by the petitioner/wife was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, qua the relatives, named above, but husband Kultar Singh,was summoned to face trial u/s 406, 498-A IPC. It is worthwhile to mention here that in the State case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, framed charge against husband u/s 406, 498 -A of the IPC, as the allegations in the complaint case and the State case were the same. Both cases i.e. the State case and the complaint case were clubbed together. When the statement of the petitioner/ wife was recorded as PW-1, the application u/s 319 of the Cr .P.C was moved to summon the relatives of the husband, named above, to face trial as additional accused. The courts are fully aware of the tendency of the people to rope in each and every relations of the husband on inflated and exaggerated allegations. Even the relatives of the husband some times are not spared, who are living separately and have no connection in the matrimonial affairs of the couple. The investigating agency, in its wisdom, challaned the husband only, as no sufficient material was found against the other relatives proposed to be added as additional accused. The complainant herself deposed that she was brought to the hospital by the husband in conscious condition; she further admitted that her husband took care of her when she remained in the hospital. On the other hand, there is specific assertion of the accused/ respondent that foetus was terminated due to dancing in the marriage and has also placed on record photographs. The conduct of the petitioner/ wife shows that she was bent upon to take revenge from the in-laws family. It is worthwhile to mention here that the husband of the petitioner remained behind the bars for about two years and four months and he was released on bail after the completion of the prosecution evidence. No other evidence is forthcoming except the bald statement of the petitioner/ wife, which could connect the relatives of the husband with the commission of the offence. There is no ground to interfere in the well reasoned impugned orders of both the courts below and the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C was rightly dismissed. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. September 24, 2014 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Manoj Bhutani JUDGE ALL CONCERNED ARE ADVISED TO USE THE AFORESAID.
Posted on: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 16:25:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015