‘Proceedings are counterblast and were initiated with motive for wreaking vengeance’, Allahabad HC quashes criminal proceedings against woman who filed FIR against husband and his relatives

Allahabad High Court: In an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) filed to quash the charge sheet and summoning order, Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. said that since ingredients of Sections 504, 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) were absolutely missing , and FIR was lodged after 11 months, without any explanation, the present proceedings are counterblast and were initiated with motive for wreaking vengeance, therefore, in the light of A.M. Mohan v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339, it was a fit case where in exercise of inherent power present criminal proceedings can be quashed. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned charge sheet, summoning/ cognizance order as well as entire criminal proceedings against the applicants.

Background:

Applicant 1 was the daughter-in-law of the complainant, and the other applicants are close relatives of the daughter-in-law.

The applicant 1 has earlier lodged an FIR against her husband and his close relatives for offence under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, alleging that she suffered cruelty with regard to demand of dowry and later on, she was sent back to her parents’ house. Thereafter on persuasion in November 2020 she was allowed to live in a room at her matrimonial house, but she suffered cruelty at the hands of her husband, mother- in-law and their relatives.

After 11 months, the mother-in-law of applicant-1 lodged an FIR against the applicants under Sections 457, 448 and 506 IPC giving a different version of alleged occurrence took place on 14-07-2022, on which applicant 1 has already lodged an FIR.

Thereafter, an investigation was conducted on aforesaid FIR was lodged against the applicants, wherein charge sheet was filed on 19-08-2023 only under Section 504, 506 IPC on which Trial Court has taken cognizance by means of impugned order dated 27-10-2023.

Analysis and Decision:

The Court referred to A.M. Mohan v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339 , wherein the law regarding exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash complaints and criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized.

Further, the Court took note of Sections 503, 504 and 506 IPC, and the FIR, and said that it was not in dispute that relation between parties are not cordial and criminal cases are pending between parties, as well as the husband of applicant 1 has also filed an application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Before considering, whether it was a fit case to quash criminal proceedings, the Court referred to Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P¹ and said that to make out a case under Section 506 IPC the ingredients of criminal intimidation as mentioned in Section 503 IPC has to be complied with, i.e., the threat caused by applicant must be with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person was legally entitled to do.

However, the Court said that part of the allegation that applicants have committed offence of lurking premises by night and house trespass was not found to be proved. Therefore, the only allegation left was to raise abusive language and cause threat. But the statements are much short of ingredients that applicants intended to alarm the Complainant side. The nature of abusive language was not specific. Applicant-1 was naturally at the house, and there was no evidence of intent. Therefore, ingredients of Section 503 IPC as punishable under Section 506 IPC are not made out.

Concerning allegation under Section 504 IPC, after referring to Mohammad Wajid (supra), the Court reiterated that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace. The Court said that as the nature of abusive language was not on record, there was no statement to the effect that alleged abusive language used by applicants was sufficient to insult the Complainant side to commit a breach of peace. Thus, even ingredients of Section 504 IPC are missing.

Therefore, the Court said that since ingredients of Sections 504, 506 IPC are absolutely missing as well as not only FIR was lodged after about 11 months, without any explanation but on basis of above referred facts, present proceedings are counterblast and were initiated with motive for wreaking vengeance, therefore, in the light of A.M. Mohan (supra), it was a fit case where in exercise of inherent power present criminal proceedings can be quashed.

[X v. State of UP, 2024 SCC OnLine All 3141, decided on 01-07-2024]

---

Advocates who appeared in this case:

Counsel for Applicant:– Advocate Abhay Kumar, Advocate Ankit Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party:– G.A., Qazi Vakil Ahmad