False 498A Cases: Supreme Court Penalizes Wife's Father

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India (Apex Court) has recently imposed a cost of Rs. Five Lakhs on a woman’s father for lodging false cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at different cities/ States against the husband with the sole purpose to harass him.

Parteek Bansal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: Case Analysis

The fact of the case is that marriage was solemnized between the husband (Chartered Accountant) who was the appellant and respondent no.3/wife (who was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police at Udaipur, at the time of marriage).

Respondent No. 2, the father of the wife registered two separate complaints at different places one at Hisar, Haryana and another at Udaipur, Rajasthan against the appellant/ the husband, under Section 498A of the IPC, alleging cruelty against his daughter. Both the complaints were lodged simultaneously within a short span of time. In one of the complaints, the other family members of the appellant were also roped in.

The appellant moved a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of proceedings before the High Court of Rajasthan (High Court). However, the High Court refused to quash the FIR registered at Udaipur.

The petition was quashed on the two grounds:

1. The complaint was filed prior in time at Udaipur than the complaint in Hisar.
2. The Rajasthan Police was unaware of the earlier complaint filed before the Hisar Police, and the Rajasthan police should be given a liberty to investigate the said complaint.

Hence, the husband approached the Apex Court against the impugned order.

After the order of the High Court was passed, the Trial was concluded at Hisar, and the appellant was acquitted by the Court of Hisar. The Court at Hisar noted that the complainant (wife’s father) and the wife did not appear to depose before the Court. Hence, the Trial Court had to close the evidence of the prosecution and recorded the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC.

Ground of appeal

The sole ground on which the appeal was filed before the Apex Court was that the second FIR was lodged based on the same set of allegations made by the complainant after a few weeks of lodging a FIR at another State.

The appellant averred before the Apex Court that the High Court erred in not quashing the proceedings which were based on the same set of allegations against the appellant.

Observations of the Supreme Court

The Top Court found force in the contentions of the appellant and noted that the High Court has erred in observing that the Police of Rajasthan was unaware of the proceedings initiated at Hisar.

The Apex Court observed that “It is also not in dispute that in the complaint lodged at Udaipur, the allegations were the same as in the complaint at Hisar and additionally it was stated in the complaint at Udaipur that the complainant had earlier lodged a complaint at Hisar.” It added that “The investigating agency at Udaipur was well aware of the complaint on similar allegations being lodged at Hisar. The High Court and the Rajasthan Police were expected to at least read the complaint carefully.”

The Apex Court observed that the woman and her father misused their official position, and they lodged two simultaneous complaints at two different States based on same set of allegations under Section 498A (cruelty) of the IPC. The Court further noted that the conduct of father-daughter duo wherein they were neither withdrawing nor appearing before the Trial Court at Hisar, clearly showed their intention i.e. to harass the appellant.

Decision of the Apex Court

The Court came down heavily on the respondents and stated that the father-daughter misused the state machinery for ulterior motives and to cause harassment to the other side. It further noted that such practices should be curbed, and strict action must be taken against such acts. Hence, the Court imposed cost on Respondent No.2.

The division bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justices Vikram Nath Prashant Kumar Mishra stated that “We thus deprecate this practice of state machinery being misused for ulterior motives and for causing harassment to the other side (husband), we are thus inclined to impose cost on respondent No.2 (wife’s father) in order to compensate the appellant (husband).”

The Court directed that out of the 5 lakhs cost imposed on Respondent No.2, Rs 2.5 Lakhs would be given to the appellant (husband) and the remaining amount would be deposited to the account of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has recently delivered a very significant decision wherein it observed that the High Court has erred in not quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellant. The High Court did not observe that the respondents filed similar complaints at two different States, and they did not even appear for evidence before the Trial Court at Hisar. Hence, the sole motive of the father and daughter was to harass the appellant by misusing their positions.

The Apex Court was disappointed with such malpractice wherein the state machinery is being misused to harass the husbands without any merits in the case. Hence, it imposed heavy fine on respondent no. 2 for filing similar complaints in two states and not even appearing during trial.