Naresh Kaushal v. State of Punjab and Another

CRM-M-6026-2023 1 2024:PHHC:057540 226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6026-2023 Reserved on: 23.04.2024 Pronounced on: 25.04.2024 Naresh Kaushal ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG Punjab H ARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)

¶1The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 51 dated 14.10.2022 registered under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC at Police Station Women, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar qua the petitioner.

¶2The marriage between Gautam Sharma, grandson of the petitioner, and respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 10.12.2020 and marriage was registered on 18.12.2020 for visa purposes, while the wedding ceremony took place on

05.02.2022. No child was born out of this wedlock. The couple cohabitated together for only 37 days after which the husband-Gautam Sharma left for Canada, where he was permanently settled. Due to temperamental differences, Gautam Sharma filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Annexure P-1), which was later withdrawn (Annexure P-2) at the insistence of the elders. However, matrimonial discord ensued and the couple decided to end their marriage. In retaliation, respondent no. 2 got FIR (supra) 2024.04.29 15:25registered against her husband, parents-in-law and the petitioner. CRM-M-6026-2023 2 2024:PHHC:057540

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations levied on the petitioner are generic and omnibus in nature. Admittedly, the petitioner does not reside in the matrimonial home of respondent No.2. Further, the petitioner had gone to Canada to visit her son in June, 2022 and the FIR(supra) was registered in October, 2022. The petitioner had also moved a complaint before the concerned Commissioner of Police and the same was marked to the concerned ACP. However, the same has not been concluded. The petitioner was also granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 24.01.2023(Annexure P-8) by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

¶4Having heard the learned counsel of the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it is transpires that the petitioner is the 75-year-old maternal grandmother of the husband of respondent No.2 and is nowhere involved in the matrimonial life of the couple. It is evident that all the allegations are generic in nature and no specific material allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. Furthermore, the FIR(supra) was registered in October 2022 but the petitioner was visiting her son in Canada in June 2022. A two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 quashed the complainant against the sister-in-law of the complainant noting that the sole purpose of filing the complaint was to humiliate her and allowing criminal prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of process of law. Speaking through Justice Dalveer Bhandari, the following was observed: "34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.

¶35The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number 2024.04.29 15:25 of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led CRM-M-6026-2023 3 2024:PHHC:057540 to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law." *. A t2o <udge bench of the 7on>ble Supretie &ourt in G. "/0 */0$10 T02"e !% *303e #4 M0/0 0s/3 0 ,2002-5 *CC 177, speaking through <ustice @0esh &. ?anerjee, opined as follo2s: "18... In any event the wilful act or conduct ought to be the proximate cause in order to bring home the charge under section 498)A and not de hors the same. To have an event sometime back cannot be termed to be a factum taken note of in the matter of a charge under section 498)A. The legislative intent is clear enough to indicate in particular reference to Explanation (b) that there shall have to be a series of acts in order to be a harassment within the meaning of Explanation (b). The letters by themselves though may depict a reprehensible conduct, would not, however, bring home the charge of section 498)A against the accused. Acquittal of a charge under section 306, as noticed hereinbefore, though not by itself a ground for acquittal under section 498)A, but some cogent evidence is required to bring home the charge of section 498)A as well, without which the charge cannot be said to be maintained..." .. A three <udge bench of the 7on>ble Supretie &ourt in Abhishek v. State of adh!a Pradesh 202"(#) $.C.$.(Cri%ina&) 2"' 'uashed the ()R under Section #,$-A of the )P& against the 0other-in-la2 and brother-in-la2 of the cotiplainant and observed that the allegations are 0ostl4 general and otinibus in nature 2ithout an4 specific details as to ho2 and 2hen her brother-in-la2 and 0other-in-la2 2ho lived in different cities altogether subjected her to harasstient for do2r4. Such allegations are found to be incongruous and difficult to cotiprehend. Speaking through <ustice Sanja4 Kutiar, the scope of Section #$% &r.P.&. 'ua 'uashing of ()R stetitiing froti offence under Section #,$-A 2as also deliberated upon and the follo2ing observations 2ere 0ade: "12. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu and others [(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that AJAY GOSWAMI where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent CRM-M-6026-2023 4 2024:PHHC:057540 jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others [Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3)Judge Bench of this Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 It was observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such standard not being confused with the norm formulated in the context of the death penalty. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein, but if the Court thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self)restraint imposed by law, and more particularly, the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the Court would have jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint. xxx xxx xxx

¶15Earlier, in Neelu Chopra and another v. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184], this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the `be all and end all' of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC.

¶16Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court in Mahmood Ali and others v. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023) on the legal principles applicable apropos Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines."

¶6"itie and again, the &ourts have highlighted the tendenc4 of roping AJAY GOSWAMIin all and sundr4 0etibers of the husband>s fatiil4 in cases filed under Section CRM-M-6026-2023 5 2024:PHHC:057540 498-A of the IPC. Recently, a two Judge bench the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahalakshmi and others v. State of Karnataka Criminal Appeal No. 494/2023 decided on 30.11.2023 quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC against the husband's sisters and cousins and observed that if the allegations are not serious and substantiated, and there is no clear evidence of accused's involvement in the complainant's marital life, they cannot be implicated under Section 498-A of the IPC.

¶8It appears that the petitioner does not reside in the matrimonial home of respondent No.2 and nothing available on the record indicates cruelty on behalf of the petitioner or her involvement in the marital life of respondent no.2. The vague and omnibus allegations levelled against the petitioner seem to be motivated by mere private spite and vendetta.

¶9Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 51 dated

14.10.2022 registered under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC at Police Station Women, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar is hereby quashed qua the petitioner.

¶10Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

25.04.2024