The Supreme Court, while quashing an FIR under Section 498A of IPC, observed that in recent times, greater disaffection surrounding the institution of marriage has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.

A Division Bench of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari on Tuesday said that “incorporation of Section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention”.

The Bench allowed the appeal against the judgement dated November 13, 2019 passed by the High Court of Patna, challenging the FIR dated April 1, 2019, implicating the appellants for offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The High Court vide order dismissed the same.

The Complainant got married to Md Ikram on September 18, 2017. The appellants herein are the in-laws of Complainant. On December 11, 2017, the complainant initially instituted a criminal complaint against her husband and the appellants before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea alleging demand for dowry and harassment.

Thereafter, when the file was put up before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court, Purnea, for passing order at the stage of issuance of summon, the Magistrate concluded that upon perusal of material evidence, no prima-facie case was made against the in-laws and that the allegations levelled against them were not specific in nature. The said court, however, took cognisance for the offence under Section 498A, 323 IPC against husband Md. Ikram, and issued summons. This dispute was eventually resolved and the Complainant came back to the matrimonial home.

Subsequently, on 01.04.19, Complainant, gave another written complaint for registration of FIR under sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 IPC against her husband Md. Ikram and the appellants . The complaint inter-alia alleged that all the accused were pressurizing the Complainant to purchase a car as dowry, and threatened to forcibly terminate her pregnancy if the demands were not met.

Aggrieved, the Husband and appellant herein filed a criminal writ petition before the Patna High Court, for quashing of the said FIR dated 01.04.19, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment. The High Court observed that the averments made in the FIR prima-facie disclosed commission of an offence and therefore the matter was required to be investigated by the police. The Appellants herein, being the niece , Mother in-law , Sister in-law , and brother in law  have thereby approached the High court by way of the Special Leave Petition.

While Considering the appeal the Apex Court held that at numerous instances Top Court has expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the earlier judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore,  the court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, the Bench noted that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation where one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence.

“The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution”, the Bench observed.

Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR , the Court noted that the State of Bihar, contended that the present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the Principal Judge Purnea, to not harass the Respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 01.04.19, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17.

The Court further held that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.

“Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged”, the Bench said while allowing the appeal.

The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea seeking the constitution of a Central Haj Committee as per the provisions of the Haj Committee Act, 2002. The petitioner has alleged unlawful usage of the Central Haj Fund worth Rs 14 crore by the respondents for buying property to establish a new ‘Haj House’ in Mumbai when the Haj Committee headquarters is already situated in the Maharashtra capital.

The bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari heard the petition which also sought establishment of state haj committees in every state of the country. The petition sought establishment of such committees in consonance with the provisions of the Haj Committee Act, 2002.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hedge, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the there is no operational Central Haj Committee in India since 2019 and the Centre and the respondents have failed to comply with the strict provisions of the Haj Committee Act, 2002 as they have failed to appoint such committees under the Act.

The counsel submitted further that there is only one state of 19 states which has an operational State Haj Committee, while other states are just waiting for the state government to appoint such committees where these states do not have a functional committee for more than 3 years.

“Section 8 of the Act provides for the formation of a new committee at least 4 months prior to the expiry of the incumbent committee,” and the tenure of the previous committee has already lapsed, the counsel added.

The petition stated planning for Haj 2022 is scheduled for July 7, 2022 and will be affected severely if a committee is not appointed immediately by the Centre or the concerned state government.

Also Read: NEET PG 2021: Supreme Court dismisses plea challenging 40% quota to in-service medical officers in West Bengal

A meeting was held October 22, 2021 with  regard to the haj committee, where the Union Minister for Minority Affairs had given an assurance that soon an official announcement for Haj 2022 will be made in November first week.

The petition has been filed through AOR Talha Abdul Rahman whereas the petitioner is a former member of the Central Haj Committee who is seeking issuance of directions to the Haj Committee of India to seek cancellation of the lease of land for Haj House in Khargar, Navi Mumbai from City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), Mumbai, return the amounts spent thereupon to the Haj Fund and declare the said expenditure as being impermissible under law.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant any further relief to a man, who was convicted for murdering a person posted as corporal at Air Force Station Bhisiana and shredded his body into pieces more than four years back, and whose death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.

A bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, while dismissing the appeal of Sailesh Kumar seeking remission of sentence, said “You have come in a bad case, you were given relief earlier.”

Advocate Sunil Kumar Jain, appearing for the petitioner, urged the court to remit the sentence of Sailesh.

Sunil Kumar Jain, advocate for Sailesh, submitted that there was no evidence, only on basis of Section 106 IPC, Sailesh was convicted, as except recovery, no last seen theory was established by any evidence.  He further submitted that there has to be other circumstantial evidence, which has to be proved by the prosecution.

Sailesh had moved the Supreme court against the Punjab and Haryana High Court order, wherein his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment and he had to compulsorily serve minimum sentence of 20 years without being entitled to any remission/commutation. The trial court sent had reference in terms of Section 366 CrPC to the High court for confirmation of death sentence. The appeals were also filed by Sailesh and his wife Anuradha Patel, co-convict in the murder case.

Also Read: Supreme Court says Gorakhpur girl’s marriage to Muslim man won’t stand if she is a minor

The apex court asked, “From where the parts of body recovered?”

Sunil replied, “From my flat.”

The matter pertains to murder of one Vipin Kumar Shukla, husband of complainant Kumkum Shukla. Vipin went missing on February 8, 2017, whose body was found shredded into pieces on February 21, 2017. The FIR was lodged by complainant Kumkum on February 15, 2017.

The fact of case is that Kumkum and her father-in-law Triveni Shukla came to know that Sailesh and Shashi Bhushan Patel had abducted Vipin and murdered him and that they had concealed his body after cutting the same into pieces and that Anuradha had instigated them and had also helped them in concealing the body. On getting information, they both went to the quarter of the accused, where they noticed a foul smell emanating and they saw Anuradha trying to shut doors and windows of their house on account of which they became sure that the three persons had murdered Vipin and had concealed the body in their house.

The information was conveyed to the police, which came to the spot and interrogated Sailesh. The accused told police about 16 black polythene bags containing the pieces of Vipin’s body, which were recovered from his house later. Inquest proceedings were conducted and post-mortem examination was conducted on the body.

Also Read: Supreme Court upholds validity of Rule 89 (5) of CGST Rules 2017 under GST law

The Prosecution alleged that the body of the deceased, which had been chopped into pieces, was recovered at the instance of Sailesh from his house. this hardly leaves anything to be imagined, particularly when apart from recovery of the body, the weapon of offence and the mobile phones of the deceased were also recovered from the house of the accused.

Burden of proving fact is on the person having knowledge of it

The Counsel for Sailesh assailed the impugned judgment of trial court before High Court of Punjab that inter-alia, on the ground that it is a case based totally on circumstantial evidence, which is mainly in the shape of disclosure statement of the accused Sailesh himself, which can hardly be said to be a substantial or convincing piece of evidence and is rather a weak type of evidence, which would not justify conviction of the appellants in the absence of any other corroborative evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused.