Initially her husband did not respond to her complaints and divorce legal notice. Later on, when the first FIR and second FIR were lodged in November 2018 and February 2019, respectively, her husband succumbed to the pressure of agreeing to a divorce. In May 2019 her husband accepted divorce by mutual decree. Though he was divorced, the other criminal cases under section 498A, Section 313- miscarriage without a woman’s consent, Section 312-causing miscarriage, etc were still active.
The present story is about a family who fought back against all of these criminal cases and ultimately won in the Supreme Court as it was proved that the wife had filed these cases to force her husband to agree for a divorce.
Read below to understand what legal reasonings, precedents and law interpretations were used by the Supreme Court to arrive at this conclusion.
Wife filed 498A case but fails to give any specific allegation of any such injury hence it was deemed a vague FIR
Section 498A refers to a situation where a husband or relative of the husband of a woman subjects her to cruelty. The Supreme Court went through 498A charges and said “it was clear that ‘cruelty’ is not enough to constitute the offence. It must be done with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself. In the present case, the allegations levelled in the FIR do not reveal the existence of any such allegations. The only allegation that referred to an injury being inflicted against the complainant is a vague statement that the son of the appellants (in-laws) herein used to beat her, but there is no specific allegation of any such injury being caused by the appellants herein.”The Supreme Court referred to this legal judgment for guidance on precedent: Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat where it was observed that, ‘cruelty’ simpliciter is not enough to constitute the offence, rather it must be done either with the intention to cause grave injury or to drive her to commit suicide or with intention to coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands.
Supreme Court finds the wife lied about her in-laws giving poison to kill their unborn child
The Supreme Court carefully examined the chargesheet dated February 8, 2021 and the Doctor’s statement who treated her after the alleged poisoning incident on November 28, 2016. The doctor said she came to the hospital on December 5, 2016, at 02.30 pm in the OPD for treatment of a complaint of abdominal pain and bleeding.
The Doctor in this statement said: “She told me that she was diagnosed with pregnancy when her urine was tested 7 days before coming to the hospital. But she told me that the next day after I was examined by kit, she told me that the abortion pills must have been in my stomach. Having told me that, I examined her and did sonography. While doing this sonography, I noticed that she had a seven-week-old lifeless fetus in her womb and was bleeding.”
Justice B.R. GAVAI of the Supreme Court said:
- “Through the perusal of the statement of the doctor, it is revealed that the complainant herself stated that the pregnancy was revealed to her when she tested it herself using a pregnancy testing kit and this was stated to be seven days before her visit to the hospital, i.e. on the day of the alleged incident.”
- “Furthermore, there is not even a whisper in the FIR about the complainant conveying the news of the pregnancy to the appellants or their son. It is unusual that when the allegations under Sections 312 and 313 of IPC are levelled against the appellants (in-laws and husband), such an important fact surrounding her pregnancy and its knowledge to the appellants is not to be found in the FIR.”
- “It is categorically mentioned in the FIR that the appellants brought the poisoned food pre-made and hence, it would mean that they would need to have prior knowledge about the pregnancy of the complainant. No such communication or intimation is alleged by the complainant in the FIR that would even remotely lead to the conclusion that the appellants were aware about the pregnancy of the complainant.”
Cruelty needs to be proved; merely stating cruelty without concrete evidence is not accepted
The Supreme Court of India referred to this judgement where a precedent was set in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others. In this case (Bhajan Lal) it was held that when the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused.
The Supreme Court said:
- “In the present case also, as discussed above, the facts, when taken at face value, do not reveal any specific instance of cruelty committed by the appellants herein. In our view, only stating that cruelty has been committed by the appellants herein due to some reason, would not amount to the offence under Section 498-A of IPC being attracted.”
- “The next allegation regarding a specific incident relating to the miscarriage being caused by the appellants herein has also been discussed above. A bare perusal of the allegation and the analysis of the same when compared with the statement of the Doctor reveals that even if the allegations are accepted at the face value, it would not prima facie make out a case against the present appellants.”
- Furthermore, the complaint was lodged after the notice of Divorce was given by the complainant, wherein there was not even a whisper of the allegation of the cruelty, or the miscarriage caused by the appellants. The alleged incident took place in 2016, whereas the complaint was filed after the notice of Divorce was given by the complainant, i.e. in 2018.
- The latest alleged incident in the FIR is of the year 2016, wherein the most serious allegations under Sections 312 and 313 of the IPC is raised. The explanation for the delay in filing of the complaint given by the complainant is that she did not want to spoil the marital relations. However, she has herself stated that she began residing separately and had moved out of the matrimonial house.
- Moreover, the notice of Divorce was completely silent about the allegations raised in the FIR which were subsequently filed. The notice of Divorce on the other hand contained allegations relating to the demand of money and jewellery from the complainant by the son of the appellants. It also contained vague allegations of physical assault inflicted by the son of the appellants. No allegation of cruelty or the miscarriage allegedly caused by the appellants was raised.
Wife had ulterior motive to pressurise her husband for divorce
The Supreme Court said, “These facts lead us to conclude that the proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive of pressurizing the son of the appellant herein to consent to the divorce according to the terms of the complainant (wife) and the proceedings were used as a weapon by the complainant in the personal discord between the couple.”
The Supreme Court referred to this judgement for guidance on precedent: Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra).
Supreme Court finds High Court committed error in taking the FIR by wife on face value hence quashed all pending criminal cases
The Supreme Court quashed all cases against the husband and his family.
The Supreme Court said: “In the present case, the High Court has held that the allegations made by the complainant cannot be presumed to be false and whether they are believable or not will be examined by the Trial Court. We hold that this was an erroneous approach taken by the High Court as according to the principles laid down in the case of Bhajanlal (supra), the allegations levelled in the complaint should at the very least be given a prima facie consideration. In the result, we find that this was a fit case wherein the High Court should have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings.”
The Supreme Court in its judgement set aside the judgement passed by the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad bench regarding application of criminal charges against the husband. As a further relief to husband the Supreme Court also quashed the criminal proceedings and FIRs in this case.
What might be the precedent set by this judgement?
ET Wealth Online has asked various experts their opinion on this judgement. Here’s what they said:
Raunak Dhillon, Partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas: The judgment finds that the allegations made in the complaint with respect to the accused persons (including the in laws of the complainant) having deliberately caused the complainant to suffer a miscarriage, when compared to the statement of the doctor, even if accepted at face value, do not make out a prima facie case against the in laws of the complainant (Para 30 of the judgment). The Supreme Court has reiterated the principles laid down in Bhajanlal, holding that the High Court must at least give a prima facie consideration to the allegations levelled to see whether the Ingredients of the alleged offence are made out or not, before declining to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the premise that allegations are still pending consideration by the trial court. (Para 35 of the Judgment).
Ekta Rai, Advocate, Delhi High Court: This Supreme Court’s judgment highlights the critical role of concrete evidence in matrimonial and criminal disputes. By emphasizing that vague, generalized, and delayed allegations cannot form the basis for prosecution, the Court has reaffirmed the principle that legal provisions, such as Section 498-A IPC, must not be misused as tools of personal vendetta. This decision underscores the judiciary’s duty to prevent harassment of innocent family members while ensuring that genuine cases of cruelty and harassment are not diluted. It serves as a reminder that due process and evidence-based assessment are fundamental to upholding justice, especially in cases involving familial discord.
Akhil Chowdhary Unnam, Head & Partner – Unnam Law Firm: The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not find that the woman herself took the abortion pills. The SC analyzed the chronology of events that transpired and came to the conclusion that there is no evidence to suggest that abortion pills were given by the in-laws or the husband to the woman. The SC also took the suspicious circumstances surrounding the abortion into account viz., the fact that if the alleged offence took place on 28/11/2016, why was such a serious offence not mentioned in the divorce notice which was sent on 15/05/2018 and the reason for making the complaint alleging offences u/s 312 & 313 6 months after the divorce notice was sent. This also was considered a suspicious circumstance which added to quashing of the 498A proceedings, as the motive behind them appeared to be to achieve a settlement in the underlying divorce proceedings.
The judgement sets a very welcome precedent in the 498A jurisprudence. It has long been lamented that a noble law such as 498A is being misused as a tool for oppression and blackmail by the vast majority of litigants. This judgement reiterates that mere allegations without any further evidence to back the same would not withstand judicial scrutiny. This is one small step closer to purifying the criminal law machinery which has been polluted by false and illegally motivated litigants who are bringing stigma and disrepute to genuine litigants who require the protection of law under 498A. Owing to the misdeeds of the past, today unfortunately poor women who are in genuine requirement for justice have to deal with a permanent stigma attached to them if they commence 498A proceedings. This defeats the very purpose of the laws which are brought in to protect women.
Raheel Patel, Gandhi Law Associates: The Supreme Court has not come to a finding that the woman herself took the abortion pills. The Court has only come to a finding that her allegations that the abortions pills were forcibly fed to her by the Appellants are not true.
The FIR only contains a vague statement that the complainant was beaten by the appellants’ son, with no detailed or specific allegations against the appellants themselves regarding injury or cruelty. The Court noted that the complainant had not mentioned any claims of cruelty or miscarriage in her earlier divorce proceedings. In addition, the nearly two-year delay in filing the FIR suggested that it may have been lodged as a retaliatory measure against the son during the divorce case. This judgement sets a precedent and finds that mere cruelty is insufficient to constitute an offence under Section 498A. To satisfy the provision, the cruelty must be intended to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or otherwise seriously harm herself.
