‘Glorified Trivialities’: Karnataka HC Dismisses Criminal Cases of Cruelty Against Husband, Family – News18

The Karnataka High Court has said criminal proceedings against a man and his family members cannot be permitted basis “glorified trivialities” between husband and wife.

It quashed a “recklessly and loosely” laid case for offences under Sections 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation).

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna also asked the Investigating Officers to exercise caution, while invoking Section 504 and 506 of the IPC in such cases.

Expressing its concern, the bench said, “It has become a norm these days for the complainants to drag all the members of the family and in some cases even the husband projecting trivial grievances. They are oblivious to the fact that these are criminal proceedings, mere pendency of which would have dire consequences on the members of the family, or any accused.”

The court was hearing a petition filed by a man under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After 15 years of marriage, the wife lodged a complaint against the petitioner and his family members.

According to the complaint, the wife asked for money to bring certain material for performance of puja. The husband did not accept the demand and abused her. The complaint was made against all the members of the family. The police, however, filed the charge sheet only against the husband under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

After hearing the arguments, the bench said if the complaint in its entirety and the summary of the charge sheet are juxtaposed, to be read in tandem, it would nowhere indicate any ingredient of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 or 506 of the IPC.

“What would unmistakably emerge is certain skirmishes between the husband and the wife, which happen, if not daily, but quite often, is projected to become the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC. The complaint is so vague as it would fetter vagueness itself,” the bench said.

“The investigation has led to filing of the charge sheet, without rhyme or reason, fortunately leaving out the parents, in the charge sheet,” the bench said, noting the offence punishable under Section 498A is “recklessly and loosely” laid against the petitioner.

The bench said if criminal proceedings on such trivialities are permitted to continue, it would be putting a premium on such allegations made in every case.

The court cited several SC judgments stressing the need for quashing frivolous cases made on the basis of far-fetched and vague allegations.

The bench also flagged its concern on role of the Investigating Officers, saying, “It has become a habit to lay Sections 504 and 506, in every offence merely because they are non-cognisable. But, nonetheless they are also offences for which trial at times can be conducted. Therefore, those offences also should bear scrutiny as to whether they are present at all.”

Going by the facts of the case, the bench said the dispute in the case at hand is between the husband and the wife. “Breach of public peace cannot be imagined in the case at hand. It is, therefore, recklessly laid which would mean that it ought not to have been invoked in the facts of the case,” it said.

With regard to Section 506, the bench said, the facts would clearly indicate that the dispute is a trivial squabble erupted between the husband and the wife. “Where from ingredients of Section 503 can spring is a mystery and on such mystery Section 506 is also loosely laid against the petitioner,” it pointed out.

In an advice, the bench said, “The Investigating Officers should exercise caution even while laying down offences even under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. They are offences, which are punishable with two years’ imprisonment. Therefore, it cannot be a frolicsome act, on the part of the Investigating Officer to simply bring in Sections 504 or 506 in a case where it does not have a speck of ingredients qua the said offences.”

The bench quashed the entire proceedings, saying permitting criminal process to go on against the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of law and ultimately result in clear and patent injustice.