Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Dowry; Cruelty and harassment; Mental and physical trauma; Quashing of criminal proceedings; Domestic violence; Section 498A of Penal Code 1860; Sections 85 and 86 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita; Vague, general and sweeping allegations in FIR; Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Inherent power of the High Court; Ex debito justitiae; Abuse of process of the court; Miscarriage of justice; Matrimonial dispute. Digital Supreme Court Reports [2024] 6 S.C.R. 133 Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2022 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No.14198 of 2022 Appearances for Parties Yusuf, Adv. for the Appellant. Chritarth Palli, Dr. Monika Gusain, Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Abhishek Grover, Vivek Gupta, Vikas Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment J. B. Pardiwala, J.

Leave granted.

This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 05.04.2022 in the Criminal Main No. 14198-2022 (CRM-M-141 98-2022) filed by the Appellant herein (sole accused in the chargesheet) by which the High Court rejected the petition & thereby declined to quash the chargesheet dated 13.10.2021 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 406, 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the “IPC”) arising from the First Information Report No. 95 of 2021 lodged by the Respondent No. 2 (wife of the Appellant) at the Urban Estate Hisar Police Station, District Hisar. FACTUAL MATRIX

The FIR dated 09.04.2021 reads thus: - "1. That the First Informant Tanu Gupta wife of Achin Gupta and daughter of Harish Manocha, is a resident of House No.1368, Urban Estate - 2, Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar and is a peace loving and law abiding woman and my marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and rituals with Accused No.1 on 09.10.2008 at New Delhi. My family had spent about thirty lakhs rupees in my engagement Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr. 134 [2024] 6 S.C.R. ceremony and marriage as per the direction of the accused persons towards furniture, jewellery, clothes and other household articles. At the time of marriage, my family handed over all her jewellery and stridhan to the accused persons saying that it is the stridhan of the first informant and whenever the first informant will need her stridhan, it has to be given back to her whereupon the accused persons assured the family of the first informant that whenever the first informant will need it, they will give it back to her.

2. That after the marriage, the first informant and Accused No.1 lived as husband and wife at B-39, Phase-2, Vikas Nagar, Hastsaal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi 110059 and the first informant performed all the duties of a wife and out of the said wedlock a boy, namely, Advay aged 8 years was born, who is presently residing with Accused No.1.

3. That after few days of the marriage, when the first informant went to her matrimonial house at that time the Accused persons taunted that your family has lowered down our image in the society and before relatives by giving less dowry and said to the first informant that at least your family should have given a big car in the dowry because Accused No.1 is doing a good job and almost earns Rs. 1,50,000/- monthly and for him, we were getting proposal from rich families who would have spent crores of rupees on the marriage. On this the first informant said that her family had already given 5 lakhs rupees in cash for purchasing the car and have already spent more than their capability and now they cannot fulfil your demand for more dowry whereupon accused persons threatened the first informant saying that if you want to live with us then you have to get our above demand for the dowry fulfilled by your parents otherwise you will not be allowed to live in this house.

That whenever the first informant cooked food in the matrimonial home, the accused persons always used Digital Supreme Court Reports [2024] 6 S.C.R. 135 to point out unnecessary defects in the food and taunted the first informant that she does not know cooking. To harass and upset the first informant, the accused persons deliberately asked her to make various dishes and when the first informant showed her inability, the accused persons used to abuse and beat her.

That Accused No.3 is the mother-in-law of the first informant, who is a teacher and she used to leave the house at 7:00 hrs in the morning for the school and the first informant used to do all household works and when her mother-in-law returned from the school, she deliberately used to point out defects in her work and used to taunt the first informant that your family should have given gold bangles to me and now, you would have to bring gold bangles from your family and when the first informant tell her that her family had already spent a lot over her marriage, then she used to abuse and give beatings to the first informant.

That Accused No.4 is the sister-in-law of the first informant who used to say that your family should have given a diamond set for me in the marriage which they have not given and now if you want to live in this house you have to bring diamond set for me otherwise I will not let you live in the house and besides this, Accused No.4 treated the first informant like a domestic servant and used to abuse and give beatings to the first informant over petty issues and instigated the other members of the family against the first informant. That the first informant always performed the duties of an ideal wife with utmost honesty and sincerity and the first informant had always lived with Accused No.1 with love and always fulfils his demands and demands of the other accused persons. That the first informant used to do all household work at her matrimonial house in whatever manner the accused persons used to ask her. In this way, there is no fault on the part of the first informant. That Accused No.1 had never treated Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr. 136 [2024] 6 S.C.R. the first informant with love and care rather he used to treat the first informant with cruelty. Beating and abusing the first informant on account of demand of dowry was a daily routine of the Accused persons.

That Accused No. 1 is an alcoholic. Who use to torture, abuse, beat the first informant and treated her inhumanely on account of less dowry under the effect of alcohol. Whenever the first informant used to tell her parents-in law Accused No. 2 and 3 about this they said that until you do not get our demand of dowry fulfilled by your parents till then you have to bear all this. The Accused persons used to treat the first informant like a domestic servant. The first informant was not allowed to even make phone calls to her family and Accused No. 1 deliberately had hacked the phone of the first informant and she was not allowed to step out of the house. Being a Hindu woman the first informant tolerated all tortures of the Accused with a hope that one day they will mend their ways and the first informant’s will live in the house happily but the same did not happen rather the behaviour of the Accused persons became more cruel towards the first informant.

That Accused No. 5 is the brother-in-law of the first informant and he resides in Delhi. After the marriage he used to come to the matrimonial house of the first informant alongwith Accused No. 4 and used to instigate Accused No. 1 to 3 against the first informant. When the first informant used to oppose this he used to hurl abuses to the first informant.

That during this period the Accused persons have beaten the first informant multiple times for demand of dowry and whenever the accused persons threw out the first informant out of the house every time the family of the Petitioner used to come along with panchas of the society and sat with the Accused persons and in every meeting at least something was given to the Accused persons but the Accused Digital Supreme Court Reports [2024] 6 S.C.R. 137 persons neither left their demand for dowry nor they changed their behaviour.

That on 02.03.2012 a son Advay was born to the first informant, the Accused persons said to the first informant that now in the traditional gifts you have to fulfil our demand for dowry. In the traditional gift the family of the first informant gave 5 tolas of gold ornaments, 51 thousand rupees in cash, and spent about 1 lakh rupees on clothing, sweets and other items. But the Accused persons were not satisfied with the articles gifted at that time and were adamant on their demand.

That when the first informant was at her matrimonial house she was posted on the post of Assistant Professor in a college at Delhi but Accused No. 1 to 3 used to snatch the whole salary of the first informant and even did not give pocket money to the first informant. Whenever the first informant demanded pocket money from Accused No. 1 he used to beat her and said that you take your expenses from your family. It is pertinent to mention here that even after the marriage the family of the first informant many times gave pocket money and money for other expenses. Before going for her job the first informant used to do all household work and prepared lunch after waking up early in the morning and then she went to the college and after returning in the evening she used to do all household work.

That after the marriage, Accused No.3 and 4 pressurized the first informant that you have to wear saree because according to the tradition, the daughters-in-law used to wear sarees. When the first informant said that I am not able to do the household chores while wearing saree, they both used to beat and abuse the first informant.

That in 2014, the first informant came to know that her husband Respondent No.1 is in illicit relationship with Vandana Sharma and when the first informant Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr. 138 [2024] 6 S.C.R. objected to this Accused No. 1 used to abuse and beat her and used to threaten that if you will tell this fact to anyone, I will kill you. It is pertinent to mention here that on 19.03.2019 when Accused No. 1 had taken the abovenamed Vandana Sharma on a tour to Jaipur, Rajasthan at that time the first informant and her brother reached Khaskoti Hotel, Jaipur and there they found both of them in a compromising position and objected to it, Accused No. 1 slapped the first informant and said that why have you brought your family here. At that time the first informant and her family did not initiate any legal proceedings against the Accused No.1 because Accused No.1 had assured that after today he would not meet Vandana Sharma and after this the first informant went to her matrimonial house alongwith Accused No.1.

That even after this Accused No. 1 used to talk with Vandana Sharma on phone and also met with her. While the first informant was at her matrimonial house, Accused No.1 filed a Divorce Petition on 25.07.2019 and which was filed on the basis of false and baseless grounds. In the said case when on 10.08.2019 a summon came at 6:30 in the morning, Accused No. 1 and 2 forcibly got the summons signed by the first informant and said that now we do not need you anymore and when the first informant objected to this, they had beaten the first informant. Thereafter the first informant called her father on phone and called him at her matrimonial house. Thereafter my family members came to my matrimonial house. Thereafter on 10.08.2019 the first informant filed an application against the Accused persons at Ranholla police station, Delhi and after that the first informant came to her parental house alongwith her father. Thereafter as per the order of the court the first informant again started living with Accused No. 1 at her matrimonial house.

That in March, 2020 during the pandemic of Covid-19, Accused No. 1 took the minor son with him and did not Digital Supreme Court Reports [2024] 6 S.C.R. 139 come home for so many days and before leaving the house Accused No. 1 had cut the water connection, and television connection of the house. Thereafter the first informant called her father on phone and called him at her house. Thereafter on 30.03.2020 the father of the first informant after getting the permission from police the father of the first informant brought her to her parental home from her matrimonial house. When the first informant informed Accused No. 1 over phone that I am going with my father then he said that who wants to keep you with him. Thereafter the family of the first informant held many meetings in the presence of elders and respectable members of the society and tried to convince the Accused persons that they should keep the first informant with them but the Accused persons were stubborn on their demands of dowry and had clearly refused to keep the first informant without fulfillment of their demand for dowry and when the first informant asked for her jewellery, stridhan and for her minor son, they clearly refused and threatened that if you file any complaint to the police against us we will kill the first informant.

That in this way, the Accused persons have ignored the first informant due to their dowry demand and they have even not returned the first informant her stridhan and are threatening that if without fulfilling their demand of dowry, the first informant comes to their house, they will kill her. Thus, by giving this complaint, a request is being made to take immediate action against the accused persons for demanding dowry, giving beatings and threatening me to kill and my stridhan be recovered from the accused persons. It will be so kind of you.”

4. The plain reading of the aforesaid FIR would indicate that the Appellant and his family members are alleged to have demanded dowry and thereby caused mental and physical trauma to the First Informant. As stated in the FIR, the family of the First Informant had spent a large sum at the time of marriage and had also handed over her ‘stridhan’ to the Appellant and his family. However, shortly Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr. 140 [2024] 6 S.C.R. after marriage, the Appellant and his family started harassing the First Informant on the false pretext that she had failed to discharge her duties as a wife and daughter-in-law and also pressurised her for some more dowry. The Appellant is alleged to be an alcoholic and used to regularly raise his hands on the First Informant and treat her inhumanely. Allegedly, upon complaining to the Appellant’s father and mother (Accused Nos. 2 & 3 in the FIR), they would take the side of their son i.e., the Appellant herein and would pressurize the First Informant to get something more towards dowry.

5. The First Informant has further alleged that her sister-in-law (Accused No. 4 in the FIR) used to harass her for a diamond set & would threaten that failing to get one, she would be driven out of her matrimonial home.

6. The First Informant was serving as an Assistant Professor and has alleged that the Appellant and his family would keep her entire salary. The Appellant would assault her whenever she would ask for money, saying that the First Informant should ask her family to bear her personal expenses.

8. It is also alleged that the Appellant was having an extra marital affair with one another woman, and he would threaten the First Informant with dire consequences had she told anyone of his affair. The Appellant continued with the extra marital affair for a long period & later filed a divorce petition in July 2019 on absolutely false and baseless grounds. It is further alleged that during the initial days of the Covid-19 lockdown, the Appellant disconnected the water supply at their matrimonial home and took away their minor son. In such circumstances, the First Informant was left with no option but to leave her matrimonial home and return to her parents. Efforts were made for some settlement however the Appellant and his family kept on insisting for more dowry and also refused to return her stridhan.

9. Upon the FIR referred to above being registered, the police carried out the investigation & proceeded to file chargesheet dated 13.10.2021, only against the Appellant herein. A closure report was filed against the remaining 4 accused. The filing of the chargesheet culminated in the Criminal Case No. CHI/1856/2021in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hisar. Digital Supreme Court Reports [2024] 6 S.C.R. 141

10. The Appellant herein went before the High Court, with a quashing petition for the purpose of getting the criminal proceedings quashed. The High Court vide its judgment & order dated 05.04.2022 (‘impugned order’), declined to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the “Cr.P.C.”). The High Court made the following observations: - “I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have gone through the record carefully. The main thrust of the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant had never been interested in living in the matrimonial home and she kept on pressurizing the petitioner for living separately from his family members. In order to achieve her objective she kept on causing harassment to the petitioner and his family members. However, a perusal of the allegations in the FIR would show that the petitioner and the family members gave taunting to the complainant for lowering down their image in the society.

Demand of a car was also made. Complainant was taunted for not having been incurred sufficient expenditure on marriage by her parents. There are allegations of beating the complainant by her husband and the other family members. It has been specifically alleged that the petitioner is an alcoholic and has illicit relations with one Vandana Sharma. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law time and again regarding exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR. A reference in this regard may be made to the law settled in case of State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein following parameters have been given:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the inherent powers Achin Gupta v.

State of Haryana & Anr. 142 [2024] 6 S.C.R. under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; Digital Supreme Court Reports [2024] 6 S.C.R. 143 (5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) w h e r e a c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g i s manifestly attended with mala fide and/ or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.

Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC Online SC 315 has held that quashing of FIR is an exception rather than an ordinary rule and the High Court should exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sparingly with circumspection. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the law settled, the present case does not fall in the category of cases for invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court mandate that in a case where from the bare reading of the allegations in the FIR no cognizable offence is made out or it has been lodged to wreak the vengeance then the High Court may intervene. The veracity of the allegations Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr. 144 [2024] 6 S.C.R. levelled by the complainant can be assessed only after a thorough investigation and thereafter by the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence led before it. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner does not qualify for exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.” (Emphasis supplied)

11. In view of the aforesaid, the Appellant is before this Court with the present appeal. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

12. Mr. Yusuf, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant herein made the following submissions: - ● ● ● The Appellant and his family had filed a divorce petition and also a domestic violence case against the First Informant in 2019 and 2020 respectively. As a counter blast to the same, the FIR No. 95 of 2021 dated 09.04.2021 came to be lodged after a period of more than 11 months from the date the First Informant left her matrimonial home and that too, only after the service of summons to her in the domestic violence case. No plausible explanation has been offered for such delay. The FIR was filed with an oblique motive & by way of vengeance towards the Appellant. The First Informant and Appellant were married for over 12 years. The allegations in the FIR are too vague and general in nature. There is no specific allegation/incident of harassment levelled against the Appellant in the FIR. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST INFORMANT/ RESPONDENT NO. 2

13. Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the First Informant herein made the following submissions: ● The Appellant and his family continuously demanded for additional dowry after the marriage. They used to beat the First Informant and take away her entire salary. Digital Supreme Court Reports [2024] 6 S.C.R. 145 ● ● ● ● After filing of the divorce petition, the Appellant stopped paying anything towards her maintenance and also disconnected the basic facilities such as water connection etc., leaving her with no option but to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parents house at Hisar. The Appellant had an affair with another woman. Only with a view to save the marriage, she kept quiet and did not inform about it to the others. The domestic violence case filed against the First Informant is absolutely frivolous and vexatious. The Appellant failed to inform this Court that he had withdrawn the divorce proceedings instituted against the First Informant. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE

14. Mr. Chritarth Palli, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State (Respondent No. 1 herein) made the following submissions: ● The Police upon registration of the FIR, conducted a fair investigation. On completion of the investigation, the proceedings against 4 out of the 5 accused came to be dropped. However, having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled, the investigating officer thought fit to file chargesheet against the Appellant. ANALYSIS

15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed?

16. The Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 got married in October 2008. The couple lived together for more than a decade and in the wedlock a child was born in March 2012.

We take notice of the fact that the Appellant filed a divorce petition in July 2019 on the ground of cruelty. The divorce petition was withdrawn as the Appellant was finding it difficult to take care of his child, while travelling all the way to Hisar on the dates fixed by the Court. The Appellant’s mother had to file a domestic violence case Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr. 146 [2024] 6 S.C.R. against the First Informant in October 2020 under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet papers indicate that the allegations levelled by the First Informant are quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. It is also pertinent to note that in the FIR no specific date or time of the alleged offence/offences has been disclosed. Even the police thought fit to drop the proceedings against the other members of the Appellant’s family. Thus, we are of the view that the FIR lodged by the Respondent No. 2 was nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition & also the domestic violence case.

It is also pertinent to note that the Respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR on 09.04.2021, i.e., nearly 2 years after the filing of the divorce petition by the Appellant and 6 months after the filing of the domestic violence case by her mother-in-law. Thus, the First Informant remained silent for nearly 2 years after the divorce petition was filed. With such an unexplained delay in filing the FIR, we find that the same was filed only to harass the Appellant and his family members. It is now well settled that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the Section itself. It is also well settled that Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the Police Officers, whose powers in that field are unfettered, so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offence is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C.. While exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. As noted above, the inherent jurisdiction under the Section, although wide, yet should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to Digital Supreme Court Reports [2024] 6 S.C.R. 147 do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. The authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has the power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that the initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

Once the investigation is over and chargesheet is filed, the FIR pales into insignificance. The court, thereafter, owes a duty to look into all the materials collected by the investigating agency in the form of chargesheet. There is nothing in the words of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which restricts the exercise of the power of the court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It would be a travesty of justice to hold that the proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has materialized into a chargesheet.

In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can, and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: - (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr. 148 [2024] 6 S.C.R.