In a significant judgment delivered by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, the Supreme Court of India set aside the Karnataka High Court’s order quashing criminal proceedings against a husband accused under Sections 498A, 324, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that when allegations of assault are supported by medical evidence and an independent witness, the pendency of matrimonial disputes cannot by itself justify quashing of proceedings. It further observed that the High Court committed an error in conducting a “mini-trial” at the stage of quashing, which is impermissible in law.
Background:
The appellant, Renuka, had lodged a complaint alleging that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, dowry demands, and assault by her husband and his family. She alleged that the marriage was solemnized in 2012, and after the husband developed an illicit relationship with another woman, she was verbally abused, assaulted, and ultimately forced to live at her parental home. On 27 October 2020, the husband and in-laws allegedly came to her parental home, threw chilli powder in her eyes, assaulted her and her relatives with slippers and stones, and used abusive language. A neighbour, Suvarna Andri, intervened and helped rescue the appellant.
Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the trial was pending in CC No. 163 of 2021.
Earlier, the High Court had quashed the case against the septuagenarian parents-in-law, citing lack of direct allegations in the FIR. However, in a subsequent petition, a co-ordinate Bench quashed the case against the husband as well, reasoning that the medical certificate did not corroborate the use of blunt force weapons as alleged.
Observations and Decision:
The Supreme Court criticised the High Court for exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC:
“The judge erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR/Chargesheet… The Judge had undertaken a mini trial to quash the proceeding which is impermissible in law.”
Citing the precedent in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that when there is legal evidence which on appreciation may or may not support the accusation, it is not open to the High Court to weigh its reliability:
“In exercising its jurisdiction under Section 561-A [now 482], the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate…”
The Court further noted that the allegation of assault was corroborated by the wound certificate (which showed simple injuries) and the statement of a neighbour:
“Whether the ocular evidence is fully incompatible with medical evidence is a matter of trial and cannot be a ground to terminate prosecution at the initial stage.”
The Court also rejected the reasoning that it was unclear who perpetrated the assault:
“When multiple accused share common intention/common object to commit a crime, it is irrelevant to determine the exact role played by each of them.”
The High Court was also criticised for holding that the prosecution was malicious due to the pendency of matrimonial proceedings:
“Offences involving cruelty on wife would invariably arise out of matrimonial disputes. Accordingly, pendency of matrimonial proceeding between the parties cannot per se lead to an inference that institution of criminal proceeding alleging assault supported by medical evidence and independent witness is a product of malice and abuse of court.”
Finally, the Supreme Court underscored the principle of judicial consistency:
“It was incumbent on the Judge while quashing the proceeding against the respondent-husband to refer to the earlier decision of the co-ordinate bench… Failure to do so infracts judicial propriety and discipline. Inconsistent decisions coming out from different benches shake public trust and reduce litigation to a punter’s game.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order dated 16 February 2024, and restored the criminal proceedings against the husband. The matter shall now proceed in accordance with law.
“Impugned order suffers from the vice of judicial caprice and arbitrariness and is liable to be set aside… the proceeding against the respondent-husband (R2) are revived and shall continue in accordance with law.”
