ABHISHEK VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 

Advertisements

FACTS OF THE CASE 

• This is a classic case where section 498A has been misused 

• Bhawna wed Nimish on July 2, 2007.On July 8, 2007, the couple departed for Mumbai following their marriage. It is said that Bhawna only made three or four trips to see her in-laws in Madhya Pradesh

• On February 25, 2009, Bhawna moved out of her marital residence in Mumbai and began living with her parents in Narsinghpur.
• Before Nimish filed for divorce on May 8, 2013, Bhawna filed a written complaint to Police Station Kotwali in District Narsinghpur on February 5, 2013. In it, she made several accusations against her husband and her in-laws, claiming that her parents had paid a large dowry.
• Bhawna continued by saying that her mother-in-law Kusum Lata and her brothers-in-law Abhishek and Sourabh used to physically and mentally harass her in order to get dowry. She also claimed that her husband and mother-in-law had complained to her and her parents about the issue of dowry and that they had begun to harass her mentally even over trivial matters.
• In Heera Nagar, Indore, a FIR was filed against all of them in accordance with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 and Section 498A of the IPC.
• Then, using Section 482 Cr.P.C., the appellants filed a motion with the Madhya Pradesh High Court.The police concluded their investigation and filed a charge sheet against each of the four accused while these cases were pending. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, filed the same in Criminal Case No. 11954 of 2014; the Madhya Pradesh High Court denied both of the quash petitions. The appellants are before the Supreme Court on special leave because they are aggrieved by this.

ISSUE 

• whether the claims made against the in-laws qualified as general omnibus accusations that could be overturned.

• Whether section 498A was misused 

RELEVANT PROVISIONS 

• Section 482 Cr.P.C.
• Section 498A IPC
• Section 3&4 of the dowry prohibition Act,1961
• Article 226
• Section 156(1)
• Section 155(2)

JUDGEMENT 

• The Court confirmed that it is completely inappropriate for the High Court to get involved in the facts to determine whether the accusations in the complaint are true when an accused person requests the quashing of the FIR by using the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
• It was noted that the ability to quashing should only be used in extremely rare circumstances, cautiously, and with extreme caution.
• The Court noted that, if unchecked, false implications through broad omnibus allegations made during matrimonial disputes would lead to abuse of the legal system.
• Given the circumstances of that case, it was determined that the wife had not made any particular accusations against the in-laws, and it was decided that permitting their prosecution in the absence of specific charges against them would constitute a misuse of the legal system.
• It was noted that the courts must handle these complaints with the utmost care and caution and must take practical considerations into account when handling matrimonial cases.
• The FIR needs to be carefully and a bit more thoroughly investigated by the High Court. Furthermore, it was noted that the Court’s investigation of the allegations contained in the FIR would not be sufficient.
• the following case types, as examples, wherein such authority could be used to safeguard the goals of justice or to stop any court’s procedure from being abused
• Even if all of the claims in the complaint and the first information report are accepted on face value, they do not, by themselves, establish any crime or establish a case against the accused.                                            
• If the first information report’s allegations and any other materials that may have been included with the FIR do not reveal a crime that would warrant a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the Code, then police officers may not investigate the matter unless a magistrate’s order falling under Section 155(2) of the Code is given.
• When the uncontested claims in the FIR or complaint, along with the supporting documentation, do not reveal the commission of any crime and do not establish a case against the accused.
• A police officer cannot conduct an investigation without a magistrate’s approval, as allowed by Section 155(2) of the Code, in cases where the charges in the FIR only relate to non-cognizable offenses.                                                 
• When the accusations contained in the formal complaint or Federal Investigation are so ludicrous and implausible that it is impossible for a reasonable person to conclude that there is enough evidence to bring charges against the accused.                               
• When any of the provisions of the Code or the Act in question (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) expressly forbid any action being taken to institute or continue the proceedings, or when there is a specific provision of the Code or the Act in question that offers effective redress for the party who has been wronged.               
• when a criminal case is obviously handled dishonestly and/or when it is maliciously started with the intention of exacting revenge on the accused and showing him contempt because of a personal or private grudge.
• The Supreme Court concluded that, in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances, Bhawna’s allegations against the appellants—as they stand—are completely unfounded and, on the face of it, do not establish a case against them.The High Court had a right to use its inherent authority under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in this case in order to revoke the FIR and the related proceedings.

REFERENCES 

• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30886035/

This case analysis is prepared by Yashika Sain of LC-1 , Faculty of Law, Delhi university 

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin