The Gauhati High Court, in a significant ruling, has quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man, holding that the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) and the charge sheet did not disclose the essential ingredients of ‘cruelty’ as defined by law. Justice Anjan Moni Kalita set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), who had taken cognizance of the offence, and consequently quashed the entire criminal case.
Case Background
The case originated from a marital dispute between a man (the petitioner) and his wife (respondent No. 2). The couple, who were in a relationship, married on October 5, 2017, and resided in Bengaluru. Soon after, marital discord arose over what the petitioner described as “trivial matters.” Subsequently, the respondent left Bengaluru and refused to continue the conjugal life.
The husband initiated legal proceedings by filing a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court at Guwahati. Upon receiving the summons for this case, the wife lodged an FIR on May 13, 2018, at Dispur Police Station against her husband and his family members, alleging offences under Sections 120(B), 406, 498(A), and 34 of the IPC.
In her FIR, the respondent alleged that her husband began torturing her mentally and physically from the day after their marriage. Specific incidents cited included the petitioner pulling her hair on October 6, 2017, and threatening a ‘talaq’; verbally abusing her on October 11, 2017, in a hotel in Jorhat; and continuous mental harassment in Bengaluru between October 17, 2017, and January 18, 2018. She also alleged one instance where he tried to suffocate her with a pillow.
Following an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet on December 31, 2018. While the husband’s in-laws were discharged at the request of the Investigating Officer, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), took cognizance of the offence under Section 498A IPC against the husband on January 30, 2019. This order of cognizance and the resulting criminal case were challenged by the petitioner before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR and charge sheet failed to disclose any offence under Section 498A IPC. He contended that the essential element of ‘cruelty’ was absent from the allegations. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and Manju Ram Kalita vs. State of Assam, the counsel submitted that for an act to constitute cruelty under Explanation (a) to Section 498A, the conduct must be of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health (mental or physical). He argued that none of the allegations met this threshold. The counsel also highlighted the Supreme Court’s observation in Sushil Kumar Sharma about the misuse of Section 498A, stating, “by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used as a shield and not an assassin’s weapon.”
Conversely, counsel for the respondent argued that the FIR clearly depicted the mental agony and harassment she had endured. He submitted that the incidents of harassment were continuous and sufficient to constitute cruelty. The counsel contended that the High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should not delve deep into the matter but only ascertain if a prima facie case was made out, which, he argued, was evident from the FIR and the charge sheet.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
After hearing both parties, the High Court carefully examined the contents of the FIR, the charge sheet, and the cited legal precedents. Justice Kalita observed that while there may have been instances of harassment during quarrels, the allegations did not meet the legal standard for cruelty under Section 498A. The Court noted, “…though on certain occasions, the petitioner might have harassed the respondent No. 2 during their quarrels, it is prima facie not found that any such incident occurred between them which would have led the respondent No. 2 to take any steps such as committing suicide.”
The judgment further stated, “There is also no allegation in the FIR that the petitioner had ever caused any grave injury to the respondent No. 2 or had committed any action whereby there was danger to the life, limb or health of the respondent No. 2.”
Regarding the allegation of attempted suffocation, the Court found it to be “an incident of one of kind and not a regular or continuous nature.” The judgment emphasized that the pre-conditions and ingredients for cruelty under Section 498A must be present in the actions of the accused.
The Court also observed that there was no material to show continuous harassment that would make the respondent’s life miserable or force her to live separately. The judgment stated, “In fact, what could be seen from the materials is that the respondent No. 2 left Bengaluru voluntarily to live with her parents.”
Concluding its analysis, the Court held, “this Court is of the considered opinion that no offence as alleged under Section 498 (A) IPC is discernable either from the FIR or from the Charge Sheet.”
In its final order, the Gauhati High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order of cognizance and the entire proceeding pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati.
