| Hon’ble Mr Justice Krishna Murari | [2022] 1 S.C.R. 558 |
| Date | 08 February 2022 |
| Court Name | Supreme Court India |
| plaintiff/appellant/petitioner | KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM & ORS. |
| defendant/respondent. | STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. |
| Judges | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari |
Facts Of the Case
1. On September 18, 2017, Tarannum Akhtar @ Soni, the Complainant (Respondent No. 5 in this case), married Md. Ikram. Respondent No. 5’s in-laws are the appellants in this case.
2. The aforementioned respondent first filed a criminal complaint against her husband and the appellants in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, on 11.12.17, claiming harassment and dowry demands. After that, the file was presented to Purnea’s Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court. For passing order at the stage of issuance of summons, the Ld 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.
3. The said court, however, took cognisance of the offence under section 498A, 323 IPC against the husband Md. Ikram and issued summons. This dispute was eventually resolved, and Respondent No. 5 herein came back to the matrimonial home.
4. On April 1, 2019, Respondent No. 5 filed a second letter complaint against her husband, Md. Ikram, and the appellants in this case, requesting the filing of a formal complaint under sections 341, 323, 379, 354, and 498A read with Section 34 IPC. Among other things, the complaint claimed that the respondent was under pressure from all of the accused. wife to buy a car as a dowry, and if the conditions weren’t fulfilled, she threatened to end her pregnancy by force.
5. The husband and appellant in this case, who were displeased, filed a criminal writ petition in the Patna High Court to have the aforementioned FIR from April 1, 2019, quashed. The petition was denied by the contested judgement. The High Court noted that the allegations in the FIR prima facie revealed the conduct of an offence; thus, the police had to look into the situation. Through the current Special Leave Petition, the appellants—who are the niece (Respondent No. 1), mother-in-law (Respondent No. 2), sister-in-law (Respondent No. 3), and brother-in-law (Respondent No. 4)—have thus come before this court.
Issues of The Case
- Are the allegations made against the in-laws’ appellants in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed ?
- Whether the High Court dismissed the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC?
- Whether the case fell within the category of false and malicious litigation in matrimonial disputes?
- Would continuing the criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law?
Judgement:
By enabling prompt governmental action, section 498A of the IPC was intended to stop cruelty to women perpetrated by their husbands and in-laws. However, there is now more discontent and conflict surrounding the institution of marriage than ever before, and matrimonial litigation has also expanded dramatically in the nation in recent years. As a result, there is now a greater propensity to use laws like 498A IPC as tools to resolve personal grievances against the husband and his family. This court has repeatedly shown concern over the abuse of section 498A IPC and the growing trend of involving the husband’s family members in marital disputes without considering the trial’s long-term effects on the complainant and the accused. If unchecked, false inferences made during a divorce conflict through sweeping omnibus allegations would lead to abuse of the legal system. As a result, this court has cautioned the courts in its rulings against the husband’s in-laws and relatives in cases where there isn’t a solid case against them. According to the facts of this case, it is evident from reading the FIR that the appellants are the target of broad accusations. “All accused harassed her mentally and threatened to terminate her pregnancy,” according to the plaintiff. Moreover, neither of the appellants has been the subject of any clear and specific accusations. This merely results in a situation where it is impossible to determine how each accused person contributed to the commission of the crime. [Paras 12, 18, 19] [567-E-H, 568-A-B, and 563-G-H]
Reasoning
The following justification led the Supreme Court to dismiss the criminal case against the appellants:
1. Misuse of Section 498A IPC: The Court recognised the growing pattern of tormenting the husband and his family by abusing Section 498A IPC. It underlined that although the clause is intended to safeguard women, it is frequently abused by levelling false accusations against in-laws.
2. Absence of explicit allegations: The court noted that there were no explicit or hard accusations made against the accused in the complaint. Prosecution cannot be started on the basis of vague accusations without proof.
3. Legal precedents and procedural abuse The court cited previous rulings that disregarded unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations in marriage conflicts. It reaffirmed the need for courts to step in when the criminal justice system is being abused to resolve private conflicts.
4. No Case Prima Facie: The appellants were found not to have a prima facie case, according to the Supreme Court. The accusations lacked specificity and were general and lacked sufficient proof to prove cruelty or harassment.
5. Defence of the Accused Against Needless Litigation: The court emphasised that protracted criminal processes that are founded on unfounded accusations subject innocent people to disproportionate harassment and emotional suffering. It underlined how important it is for judges to step in when the legal system is being misused.
The Supreme Court affirmed that irrational accusations should not be taken into consideration in marriage disputes by dismissing the FIR and criminal proceedings against the appellants using its discretionary authority under Section 482 CrPC.
References
- https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/view_judgment?id=MzAxOTU=
- 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
- SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/76640285/
Written by SHUBHAM, a final-year LL.B. (Hons.) student & an intern under Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or 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 personal.
‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.