2024 INSC 369 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2379 OF 2024

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 4912 OF 2022)

ACHIN GUPTA ……APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. ……RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

J. B. PARDIWALA, J.:

1.Leave granted.

2.This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court

of Punjab & Haryana dated 05.04.2022 in the Criminal Main No. 14198-2022

(CRM-M-14198-2022) filed by the Appellant herein (sole accused in the

chargesheet) by which the High Court rejected the petition & thereby declined

to quash the chargesheet dated 13.10.2021 for the offences punishable under

Section 323, 406, 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the

“IPC”) arising from the First Information Report No. 95 of 2021 lodged by the

Page 1 of 36

Respondent No. 2 (wife of the Appellant) at the Urban Estate Hisar Police

Station, District Hisar.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3.The FIR dated 09.04.2021 reads thus: -

“1. That the First Informant Tanu Gupta wife of Achin Gupta

and daughter of Harish Manocha, is a resident of House

No.1368, Urban Estate - 2, Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar

and is a peace loving and law abiding woman and my

marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and

rituals with Accused No.1 on 09.10.2008 at New Delhi. My

family had spent about thirty lakhs rupees in my

engagement ceremony and marriage as per the direction of

the accused persons towards furniture, jewellery, clothes

and other household articles. At the time of marriage, my

family handed over all her jewellery and stridhan to the

accused persons saying that it is the stridhan of the first

informant and whenever the first informant will need her

stridhan, it has to be given back to her whereupon the

accused persons assured the family of the first informant

that whenever the first informant will need it, they will give

it back to her.

2. That after the marriage, the first informant and Accused

No.1 lived as husband and wife at B-39, Phase-2, Vikas

Nagar, Hastsaal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi 110059 and the

first informant performed all the duties of a wife and out of

the said wedlock a boy, namely, Advay aged 8 years was

born, who is presently residing with Accused No.1.

3.That after few days of the marriage, when the first

informant went to her matrimonial house at that time the

Accused persons taunted that your family has lowered

down our image in the society and before relatives by

giving less dowry and said to the first informant that at

least your family should have given a big car in the dowry

because Accused No.1 is doing a good job and almost

earns Rs. 1,50,000/- monthly and for him, we were getting

Page 2 of 36

proposal from rich families who would have spent cores of

rupees on the marriage. On this the first informant said that

her family had already given 5 lakhs rupees in cash for

purchasing the car and have already spent more than their

capability and now they cannot fulfil your demand for more

dowry whereupon accused persons threatened the first

informant saying that if you want to live with us then you

have to get our above demand for the dowry fulfilled by

your parents otherwise you will not be allowed to live in

this house.

4.That whenever the first informant cooked food in the

matrimonial home, the accused persons always used to

point out unnecessary defects in the food and taunted the

first informant that she does not know cooking. To harass

and upset the first informant, the accused persons

deliberately asked her to make various dishes and when the

first informant showed her inability, the accused persons

used to abuse and beat her.

5.That Accused No.3 is the mother-in-law of the first

informant, who is a teacher and she used to leave the house

at 7:00 hrs in the morning for the school and the first

informant used to do all household works and when her

mother-in-law returned from the school, she deliberately

used to point out defects in her work and used to taunt the

first informant that your family should have given gold

bangles to me and now, you would have to bring gold

bangles from your family and when the first informant tell

her that her family had already spent a lot over her

marriage, then she used to abuse and give beatings to the

first informant.

6.That Accused No.4 is the sister-in-law of the first informant

who used to say that your family should have given a

diamond set for me in the marriage which they have not

given and now if you want to live in this house you have to

bring diamond set for me otherwise I will not let you live in

the house and besides this, Accused No.4 treated the first

informant like a domestic servant and used to abuse and

give beatings to the first informant over petty issues and

instigated the other members of the family against the first

informant. That the first informant always performed the

Page 3 of 36

duties of an ideal wife with utmost honesty and sincerity

and the first informant had always lived with Accused No.1

with love and always fulfils his demands and demands of

the other accused persons. That the first informant used to

do all household work at her matrimonial house in

whatever manner the accused persons used to ask her. In

this way, there is no fault on the part of the first informant.

That Accused No.1 had never treated the first informant

with love and care rather he used to treat the first

informant with cruelty. Beating and abusing the first

informant on account of demand of dowry was a daily

routine of the Accused persons.

7.That Accused No. 1 is an alcoholic. Who use to torture,

abuse, beat the first informant and treated her inhumanely

on account of less dowry under the effect of alcohol.

Whenever the first informant used to tell her parents-in law

Accused No. 2 and 3 about this they said that until you do

not get our demand of dowry fulfilled by your parents till

then you have to bear all this. The Accused persons used to

treat the first informant like a domestic servant. The first

informant was not allowed to even make phone calls to her

family and Accused No. 1 deliberately had hacked the

phone of the first informant and she was not allowed to step

out of the house. Being a Hindu woman the first informant

tolerated all tortures of the Accused with a hope that one

day they will mend their ways and the first informant's will

live in the house happily but the same did not happen

rather the behaviour of the Accused persons became more

cruel towards the first informant.

8.That Accused No. 5 is the brother-in-law of the first

informant and he resides in Delhi. After the marriage he

used to come to the matrimonial house of the first

informant alongwith Accused No. 4 and used to instigate

Accused No. 1 to 3 against the first informant. When the

first informant used to oppose this he used to hurl abuses to

the first informant.

9. That during this period the Accused persons have beaten

the first informant multiple times for demand of dowry and

whenever the accused persons threw out the first informant

out of the house every time the family of the Petitioner used

Page 4 of 36

to come along with panchas of the society and sat with the

Accused persons and in every meeting at least something

was given to the Accused persons but the Accused persons

neither left their demand for dowry nor they changed their

behaviour.

10. That on 02.03.2012 a son Advay was born to the first

informant, the Accused persons said to the first informant

that now in the traditional gifts you have to fulfil our

demand for dowry. In the traditional gift the family of the

first informant gave 5 tolas of gold ornaments, 51 thousand

rupees in cash, and spent about 1 lakh rupees on clothing,

sweets and other items. But the Accused persons were not

satisfied with the articles gifted at that time and were

adamant on their demand.

11.That when the first informant was at her matrimonial house

she was posted on the post of Assistant Professor in a

college at Delhi but Accused No. 1 to 3 used to snatch the

whole salary of the first informant and even did not give

pocket money to the first informant. Whenever the first

informant demanded pocket money from Accused No. 1 he

used to beat her and said that you take your expenses from

your family. It is pertinent to mention here that even after

the marriage the family of the first informant many times

gave pocket money and money for other expenses. Before

going for her job the first informant used to do all

household work and prepared lunch after waking up early

in the morning and then she went to the college and after

returning in the evening she used to do all household work.

12.That after the marriage, Accused No.3 and 4 pressurized

the first informant that you have to wear saree because

according to the tradition, the daughters-in-law used to

wear sarees. When the first informant said that I am not

able to do the household chores while wearing saree, they

both used to beat and abuse the first informant.

13.That in 2014, the first informant came to know that her

husband Respondent No.1 is in illicit relationship with

Vandana Sharma and when the first informant objected to

this Accused No. 1 used to abuse and beat her and used to

threaten that if you will tell this fact to anyone, I will kill

Page 5 of 36

you. It is pertinent to mention here that on 19.03.2019 when

Accused No. 1 had taken the abovenamed Vandana Sharma

on a tour to Jaipur, Rajasthan at that time the first

informant and her brother reached Khaskoti Hotel, Jaipur

and there they found both of them in a compromising

position and objected to it, Accused No. 1 slapped the first

informant and said that why have you brought your family

here. At that time the first informant and her family did not

initiate any legal proceedings against the Accused No.1

because Accused No.1 had assured that after today he

would not meet Vandana Sharma and after this the first

informant went to her matrimonial house alongwith

Accused No.1.

14.That even after this Accused No. 1 used to talk with

Vandana Sharma on phone and also met with her. While the

first informant was at her matrimonial house, Accused No.1

filed a Divorce Petition on 25.07.2019 and which was filed

on the basis of false and baseless grounds. In the said case

when on 10.08.2019 a summon came at 6:30 in the

morning, Accused No. 1 and 2 forcibly got the summons

signed by the first informant and said that now we do not

need you anymore and when the first informant objected to

this, they had beaten the first informant. Thereafter the first

informant called her father on phone and called him at her

matrimonial house. Thereafter my family members came to

my matrimonial house. Thereafter on 10.08.2019 the first

informant filed an application against the Accused persons

at Ranholla police station, Delhi and after that the first

informant came to her parental house alongwith her father.

Thereafter as per the order of the court the first informant

again started living with Accused No. 1 at her matrimonial

house.

15.That in March, 2020 during the pandemic of Covid-19,

Accused No. 1 took the minor son with him and did not

come home for so many days and before leaving the house

Accused No. 1 had cut the water connection, and television

connection of the house. Thereafter the first informant

called her father on phone and called him at her house.

Thereafter on 30.03.2020 the father of the first informant

after getting the permission from police the father of the

first informant brought her to her parental home from her

Page 6 of 36

matrimonial house. When the first informant informed

Accused No. 1 over phone that I am going with my father

then he said that who wants to keep you with him.

Thereafter the family of the first informant held many

meetings in the presence of elders and respectable members

of the society and tried to convince the Accused persons

that they should keep the first informant with them but the

Accused persons were stubborn on their demands of dowry

and had clearly refused to keep the first informant without

fulfillment of their demand for dowry and when the first

informant asked for her jewellery, stridhan and for her

minor son, they clearly refused and threatened that if you

file any complaint to the police against us we will kill the

first informant.

16. That in this way, the Accused persons have ignored the first

informant due to their dowry demand and they have even

not returned the first informant her stridhan and are

threatening that if without fulfilling their demand of dowry,

the first informant comes to their house, they will kill her.

Thus, by giving this complaint, a request is being made to

take immediate action against the accused persons for

demanding dowry, giving beatings and threatening me to

kill and my stridhan be recovered from the accused

persons. It will be so kind of you.”

4.The plain reading of the aforesaid FIR would indicate that the Appellant

and his family members are alleged to have demanded dowry and thereby

caused mental and physical trauma to the First Informant. As stated in the FIR,

the family of the First Informant had spent a large sum at the time of marriage

and had also handed over her ‘stridhan’ to the Appellant and his family.

However, shortly after marriage, the Appellant and his family started harassing

the First Informant on the false pretext that she had failed to discharge her

duties as a wife and daughter-in-law and also pressurised her for some more

dowry. The Appellant is alleged to be an alcoholic and used to regularly raise

Page 7 of 36

his hands on the First Informant and treat her inhumanely. Allegedly, upon

complaining to the Appellant’s father and mother (Accused Nos. 2 & 3 in the

FIR), they would take the side of their son i.e., the Appellant herein and would

pressurize the First Informant to get something more towards dowry.

5.The First Informant has further alleged that her sister-in-law (Accused

No. 4 in the FIR) used to harass her for a diamond set & would threaten that

failing to get one, she would be driven out of her matrimonial home.

6.The First Informant was serving as an Assistant Professor and has alleged

that the Appellant and his family would keep her entire salary. The Appellant

would assault her whenever she would ask for money, saying that the First

Informant should ask her family to bear her personal expenses.

7.It is also alleged that the Appellant was having an extra marital affair with

one another woman, and he would threaten the First Informant with dire

consequences had she told anyone of his affair. The Appellant continued with

the extra marital affair for a long period & later filed a divorce petition in July

2019 on absolutely false and baseless grounds.

8.It is further alleged that during the initial days of the Covid-19 lockdown,

the Appellant disconnected the water supply at their matrimonial home and took

away their minor son. In such circumstances, the First Informant was left with

no option but to leave her matrimonial home and return to her parents. Efforts

Page 8 of 36

were made for some settlement however the Appellant and his family kept on

insisting for more dowry and also refused to return her stridhan.

9.Upon the FIR referred to above being registered, the police carried out

the investigation & proceeded to file chargesheet dated 13.10.2021, only against

the Appellant herein. A closure report was filed against the remaining 4 accused.

The filing of the chargesheet culminated in the Criminal Case No.

CHI/1856/2021in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hisar.

10.The Appellant herein went before the High Court, with a quashing

petition for the purpose of getting the criminal proceedings quashed. The High

Court vide its judgment & order dated 05.04.2022 (‘impugned order’),

declined to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers

under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the

“Cr.P.C.”). The High Court made the following observations: -

“I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at

length and have gone through the record carefully.

The main thrust of the arguments raised by counsel

for the petitioner is that the complainant had never

been interested in living in the matrimonial home and

she kept on pressurizing the petitioner for living

separately from his family members. In order to

achieve her objective she kept on causing harassment

to the petitioner and his family members. However, a

perusal of the allegations in the FIR would show that

the petitioner and the family members gave taunting

to the complainant for lowering down their image in

the society. Demand of a car was also made.

Complainant was taunted for not having been

Page 9 of 36

incurred sufficient expenditure on marriage by her

parents. There are allegations of beating the

complainant by her husband and the other family

members. It has been specifically alleged that the

petitioner is an alcoholic and has illicit relations with

one Vandana Sharma .

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law time

and again regarding exercising the jurisdiction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR. A reference in

this regard may be made to the law settled in case of

State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC

335, wherein following parameters have been given:-

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the

various relevant provisions of the Code under

Chapter XIV and of the principles of law

enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions

relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power

under Article 226 of the inherent powers under

Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted

and reproduced above, we have given the

following categories of cases by way of

illustration wherein such power could be

exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of

any court or otherwise to secure the ends of

justice, though it may not be possible to lay down

any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently

channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid

formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad

kinds of cases wherein such power should be

exercised:-

(1) where the allegations made in the First

Information Report or the complaint, even if they

are taken at their face value and accepted in their

entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence

or make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information

Report and other materials, if any, accompanying

the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence,

justifying an investigation by police officers under

Page 10 of 36

Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order

of a Magistrate within the purview of Section

155(2) of the Code;

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in

the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected

in support of the same do not disclose the

commission of any offence and make out a case

against the accused;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not

constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only

a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is

permitted by a police officer without an order of a

Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)

of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint are so absurd and inherently

improbable on the basis of which no prudent

person can ever reach a just conclusion that there

is sufficient ground for proceeding against the

accused;

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted

in any of the provisions of the Code or the

concerned Act (under which a criminal

proceeding is instituted) to the institution and

continuance of the proceedings and/or where

there is a specific provision in the Code or the

concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for

the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the

accused and with a view to spite him due to

private and personal grudge."

Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra,

2021 SCC Online SC 315 has held that quashing of

FIR is an exception rather than an ordinary rule and

Page 11 of 36

the High Court should exercise the powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. sparingly with circumspection.

Taking into consideration the above facts and

circumstances of the present case in the light of the

law settled, the present case does not fall in the

category of cases for invoking the inherent powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The parameters laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court mandate that in a case

where from the bare reading of the allegations in the

FIR no cognizable offence is made out or it has been

lodged to wreak the vengeance then the High Court

may intervene. The veracity of the allegations levelled

by the complainant can be assessed only after a

thorough investigation and thereafter by the Trial

Court on the basis of the evidence led before it.

Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the

petitioner does not qualify for exercising its jurisdiction

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Resultantly, the petition

being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.”

(Emphasis supplied)

11.In view of the aforesaid, the Appellant is before this Court with the

present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

12.Mr. Yusuf, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant herein made

the following submissions: -

The Appellant and his family had filed a divorce petition and also a

domestic violence case against the First Informant in 2019 and 2020

respectively. As a counter blast to the same, the FIR No. 95 of 2021 dated

09.04.2021 came to be lodged after a period of more than 11 months from

Page 12 of 36

the date the First Informant left her matrimonial home and that too, only

after the service of summons to her in the domestic violence case. No

plausible explanation has been offered for such delay.

The FIR was filed with an oblique motive & by way of vengeance

towards the Appellant. The First Informant and Appellant were married

for over 12 years.

The allegations in the FIR are too vague and general in nature. There is

no specific allegation/incident of harassment levelled against the

Appellant in the FIR.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST

INFORMANT/RESPONDENT NO. 2

13.Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the First

Informant herein made the following submissions:

The Appellant and his family continuously demanded for additional

dowry after the marriage. They used to beat the First Informant and take

away her entire salary.

After filing of the divorce petition, the Appellant stopped paying anything

towards her maintenance and also disconnected the basic facilities such as

water connection etc., leaving her with no option but to leave the

matrimonial home and return to her parents house at Hisar.

The Appellant had an affair with another woman. Only with a view to

save the marriage, she kept quiet and did not inform about it to the others.

Page 13 of 36

The domestic violence case filed against the First Informant is absolutely

frivolous and vexatious.

The Appellant failed to inform this Court that he had withdrawn the

divorce proceedings instituted against the First Informant.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE

14.Mr. Chritarth Palli, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State

(Respondent No. 1 herein) made the following submissions:

The Police upon registration of the FIR, conducted a fair investigation.

On completion of the investigation, the proceedings against 4 out of the 5

accused came to be dropped. However, having regard to the nature of the

allegations levelled, the investigating officer thought fit to file

chargesheet against the Appellant.

ANALYSIS

15.Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having

gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our

consideration is whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed?

16. The Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 got married in October 2008.

The couple lived together for more than a decade and in the wedlock a child

was born in March 2012.

17.We take notice of the fact that the Appellant filed a divorce petition in

July 2019 on the ground of cruelty. The divorce petition was withdrawn as the

Page 14 of 36

Appellant was finding it difficult to take care of his child, while travelling all

the way to Hisar on the dates fixed by the Court. The Appellant’s mother had to

file a domestic violence case against the First Informant in October 2020 under

the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

18.The plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet papers indicate that the

allegations levelled by the First Informant are quite vague, general and

sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. It is also pertinent to

note that in the FIR no specific date or time of the alleged offence/offences has

been disclosed. Even the police thought fit to drop the proceedings against the

other members of the Appellant’s family. Thus, we are of the view that the FIR

lodged by the Respondent No. 2 was nothing but a counterblast to the divorce

petition & also the domestic violence case.

19.It is also pertinent to note that the Respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR on

09.04.2021, i.e., nearly 2 years after the filing of the divorce petition by the

Appellant and 6 months after the filing of the domestic violence case by her

mother-in-law. Thus, the First Informant remained silent for nearly 2 years after

the divorce petition was filed. With such an unexplained delay in filing the FIR,

we find that the same was filed only to harass the Appellant and his family

members.

20. It is now well settled that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has

to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only where such exercise

is justified by the tests laid down in the Section itself. It is also well settled that

Page 15 of 36

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court but

only saves the inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment

of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are three circumstances under which the

inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order

under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to

otherwise secure the ends of justice.

21.The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the

Police Officers, whose powers in that field are unfettered, so long as the power

to investigate into the cognizable offence is legitimately exercised in strict

compliance with the provisions under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C.. While

exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the court does not function

as a Court of appeal or revision. As noted above, the inherent jurisdiction under

the Section, although wide, yet should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with

caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid

down in the Section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and

substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. The

authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is

made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has the power

to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any

action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In

exercise of the powers, the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it

finds that the initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of

Page 16 of 36

court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of

justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine

the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible

to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and

whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

22.Once the investigation is over and chargesheet is filed, the FIR pales into

insignificance. The court, thereafter, owes a duty to look into all the materials

collected by the investigating agency in the form of chargesheet. There is

nothing in the words of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which restricts the exercise of

the power of the court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of

justice only to the stage of the FIR. It would be a travesty of justice to hold that

the proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of

FIR but not if it has materialized into a chargesheet.

23.In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866, this

Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can, and

should be exercised to quash the proceedings: -

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar

against the institution or continuance e.g. want of

sanction;

ii) where the allegations in the first information report

or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in

their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but

there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence

adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

Page 17 of 36

24.This Court, in the case of State of A.P. v. Vangaveeti Nagaiah, reported

in (2009) 12 SCC 466 : AIR 2009 SC 2646, interpreted clause (iii) referred to

above, observing thus: -

“6. In dealing with the last category, it is important to

bear in mind the distinction between a case where

there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence

which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations

made, and a case where there is legal evidence which,

on appreciation, may or may not support the

accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under

Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not

ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the

evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a

reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be

sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge.

Judicial process no doubt should not be an instrument

of oppression, or, needless harassment Court should

be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion

and should take all relevant facts and circumstances

into consideration before issuing process, lest it would

be an instrument in the hands of a private

complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person

needlessly. At the same time the Section is not an

instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit

a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The

scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the

Code and the categories of cases where the High

Court may exercise its power under it relating to

cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any

court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were

set out in some detail by this Court in State of

Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. A

note of caution was, however, added that the power

should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of

rare cases.

The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are

as follows:

Page 18 of 36

“(1) Where the allegations made in the first

information report or the complaint, even if they

are taken at their face value and accepted in their

entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence

or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information

report and other materials, if any, accompanying

the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,

justifying an investigation by police officers under

Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order

of a Magistrate within the purview of Section

155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in

the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected

in support of the same do not disclose the

commission of any offence and make out a case

against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not

constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only

a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is

permitted by a Police Officer without an order of

a Magistrate as contemplated under Section

155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint are so absurd and inherently

improbable on the basis of which no prudent

person can ever reach a just conclusion that there

is sufficient ground for proceeding against the

accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted

in any of the provisions of the Code or the

concerned Act (under which a criminal

proceeding is instituted) to the institution and

continuance of the proceedings and/or where

there is a specific provision in the Code or the

concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for

the grievance of the aggrieved party.

Page 19 of 36

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the

accused and with a view to spite him due to

private and personal grudge.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

25.If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping

allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal

conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a

duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to

find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or

whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals

in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a

matrimonial dispute.

26.In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2010 Criminal Law

Journal 4303 (1), this Court observed the following: -

“28. It is a matter of common knowledge that

unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly

increasing in our country. All the courts in our country

including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases.

This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the

family life of a large number of people of the society.

29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases

emanating from section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860

which reads as under:

“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a

woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being

the husband or the relative of the husband of a

woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be

Page 20 of 36

punished with imprisonment for a term which may

extend to three years and shall also be liable to

fine.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,

‘cruelty’ means:

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature

as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide

or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or

health (whether mental or physical) of the

woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such

harassment is with a view to coercing her or any

person related to her to meet any unlawful

demand for any property or valuable security or

is on account of failure by her or any person

related to her to meet such demand.”

30. It is a matter of common experience that most of

these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in

the heat of the moment over trivial issues without

proper deliberations. We come across a large number of

such complaints which are not even bona fide and are

filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid

increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry

harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous

social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the

social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished.

They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small

incidents should not be reflected in the criminal

complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either

on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned

members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession

must maintain its noble traditions and should treat

every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human

problem and must make serious endeavour to help the

parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that

human problem. They must discharge their duties to the

best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace

and tranquility of the society remains intact. The

Page 21 of 36

members of the Bar should also ensure that one

complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint

the implications and consequences are not properly

visualized by the complainant that such complaint can

lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to

the complainant, accused and his close relations.

33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth

and punish the guilty and protect the innocent To find

out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these

complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and

all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At

times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is

difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to

be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these

complaints and must take pragmatic realities into

consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.

The allegations of harassment of husband's close

relations who had been living in different cities and

never visited or rarely visited the place where the

complainant resided would have an entirely different

complexion. The allegations of the complaint are

required to be scrutinized with great care and

circumspection. Experience reveals that long and

protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony

and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It

is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases

filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's

relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it

would ruin the chances of amicable settlement

altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long

and painful.

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.

Page 22 of 36

35. The 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 of these

complaints have not only flooded the courts but also

have led 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. We

direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to

the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary,

Government of India who may place it before the

Hon'ble Minister for Law and Justice to take

appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.”

(Emphasis supplied)

27.In the aforesaid context, we may refer to and rely upon the decision of

this Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (Criminal Appeal No.

1277 of 2014, decided on 2

nd

July, 2014). In the said case, the petitioner,

apprehending arrest in a case under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, prayed for anticipatory bail before this Court,

having failed to obtain the same from the High Court. In that context, the

observations made by this Court in paras 6, 7 and 8 respectively are worth

taking note of. They are reproduced below: -

“6. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial

disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is

greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC

was introduced with avowed object to combat the

menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her

husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A

Page 23 of 36

is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a

dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are

used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled

wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband

and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a

quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and

grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living

abroad for decades are arrested. Crime in India 2012

Statistics published by National Crime Records Bureau,

Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762

persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence

under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the

year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this

provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts

that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally

included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the

total persons arrested under the crimes committed

under Penal Code, 1860. It accounts for 4.5% of total

crimes committed under different sections of penal

code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and

hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section

498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction

rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As

many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on

current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in

acquittal.

7. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast

scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police.

There is a battle between the law makers and the police

and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the

lesson implicit and embodied in the Cr.PC. It has not

come out of its colonial image despite six decades of

independence, it is largely considered as a tool of

harassment, oppression and surely not considered a

friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the

drastic power of arrest has been emphasized time and

again by Courts but has not yielded desired result.

Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so

also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only

this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources

of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then

proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a

Page 24 of 36

handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or

act with oblique motive.

8. Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this

Court in a large number of judgments emphasized the

need to maintain a balance between individual liberty

and societal order while exercising the power of arrest.

Police officers make arrest as they believe that they

possess the power to do so. As the arrest curtails

freedom, brings humiliation and casts scars forever, we

feel differently. We believe that no arrest should be

made only because the offence is non-bailable and

cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers

to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one

thing, the justification for the exercise of it is quite

another. Apart from power to arrest, the police officers

must be able to justify the reasons thereof. No arrest

can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation

of commission of an offence made against a person. It

would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no

arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction

reached after some investigation as to the genuineness

of the allegation. Despite this legal position, the

Legislature did not find any improvement. Numbers of

arrest have not decreased. Ultimately, the Parliament

had to intervene and on the recommendation of the

177

th

Report of the Law Commission submitted in the

year 2001, Section 41 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.), in the present form came

to be enacted. It is interesting to note that such a

recommendation was made by the Law Commission in

its 152

nd

and 154

th

Report submitted as back in the year

1994. …”

(Emphasis Supplied)

28.In the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P. reported in (2012)

10 SCC 741, this Court observed as under: -

“19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents

of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no

allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji

Page 25 of 36

Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who

have been included in the FIR but mere casual

reference of the names of the family members in a

matrimonial dispute without allegation of active

involvement in the matter would not justify taking

cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out

of experience that there is a tendency to involve the

entire family members of the household in the domestic

quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially

if it happens soon after the wedding.

20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an

apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter

of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad reported in (2000) 3 SCC

693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court

had held that the High Court should have quashed the

complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein

all family members had been roped into the

matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set

aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we

entirely agree that:

“there has been an outburst of matrimonial

dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred

ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the

young couple to settle down in life and live

peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes

suddenly erupt which often assume serious

proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which

elders of the family are also involved with the

result that those who could have counselled and

brought about rapprochement are rendered

helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the

criminal case. There are many reasons which

need not be mentioned here for not encouraging

matrimonial litigation so that the parties may

ponder over their defaults and terminate the

disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of

fighting it out in a court of law where it takes

years and years to conclude and in that process

the parties lose their young days in chasing their

cases in different courts.”

Page 26 of 36

The view taken by the judges in this matter was

that the courts would not encourage such

disputes.

21. In yet another case reported in (2003) 4 SCC

675 : AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S.

Joshi v. State of Haryana it was observed that there is

no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA

containing Section 498A in the Penal Code, 1860 was

to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by

relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with

a view to punish the husband and his relatives who

harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to

satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the

proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section

498A against the husband and his relatives and

subsequently she has settled her disputes with her

husband and his relatives and the wife and husband

agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent

powers by the High Court would not be proper as it

would prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the

purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR

becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a

bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would

however be a different matter depending upon the facts

and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or

not to exercise such a power.”

(Emphasis supplied)

29.The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 as well as the

learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the High Court was

justified in not embarking upon an enquiry as regards the truthfulness or

reliability of the allegations in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482

of the Cr.P.C. as once there are allegations disclosing the commission of a

cognizable offence then whether they are true or false should be left to the trial

court to decide.

Page 27 of 36

30.In the aforesaid context, we should look into the category 7 as indicated

by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The category 7 as laid reads

thus: -

“(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended

with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is

maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for

wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to

spite him due to private and personal grudge."

31.We are of the view that the category 7 referred to above should be taken

into consideration and applied in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. If

the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of

her husband and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the

FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence the

Court with a view to doing substantial justice should read in between the lines

the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter.

If the submission canvassed by the counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2

and the State is to be accepted mechanically then in our opinion the very

conferment of the inherent power by the Cr.P.C. upon the High Court would be

rendered otiose. We are saying so for the simple reason that if the wife on

account of matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband and his family

members then the first thing, she would ensure is to see that proper allegations

are levelled in the First Information Report. Many times the services of

professionals are availed for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a

legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any loopholes or

Page 28 of 36

other deficiencies in the same. However, that does not mean that the Court

should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true

or false, there are allegations in the First Information Report and the chargesheet

papers disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. If the allegations alone

as levelled, more particularly in the case like the one on hand, are to be looked

into or considered then why the investigating agency thought fit to file a closure

report against the other co-accused? There is no answer to this at the end of the

learned counsel appearing for the State. We say so, because allegations have

been levelled not only against the Appellant herein but even against his parents,

brother & sister. If that be so, then why the police did not deem fit to file

chargesheet against the other co-accused? It appears that even the investigating

agency was convinced that the FIR was nothing but an outburst arising from a

matrimonial dispute.

32.Many times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife make a

mountain out of a mole. Instead of salvaging the situation and making all

possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or

on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings

about complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that

comes in the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police, as if

the Police is the panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches up to the

Police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses,

they would get destroyed. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance,

Page 29 of 36

adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a

certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles,

trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and

blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in the

heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that

point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case,

always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their

character and social status. A very technical and hyper sensitive approach would

prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial

disputes the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom

in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would

come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a

very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned. The only

reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue

delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but

hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and

harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The

degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. However, the Police

machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very

genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be

utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be

squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends. In

Page 30 of 36

all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of

the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections

506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause

annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations,

quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also

not amount to cruelty.

33.Lord Denning, in Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky, (1950) 2 All ER 398 observed

as under: -

“When the conduct consists of direct action by one

against the other, it can then properly be said to be

aimed at the other, even though there is no desire to

injure the other or to inflict misery on him. Thus, it may

consist of a display of temperament, emotion, or

perversion whereby the one gives vent to his or her own

feelings, not intending to injure the other, but making

the other the object-the butt-at whose expense the

emotion is relieved.”

When there is no intent to injure, they are not to be

regarded as cruelty unless they are plainly and

distinctly proved to cause injury to health……..when

the conduct does not consist of direct action against the

other, but only of misconduct indirectly affecting him or

her, such as drunkenness, gambling, or crime, then it

can only properly be said to be aimed at the other when

it is done, not only for the gratification of the selfish

desires of the one who does it, but also in some part

with an intention to injure the other or to inflict misery

on him or her. Such an intention may readily be inferred

from the fact that it is the natural consequence of his

conduct, especially when the one spouse knows, or it

has already been brought to his notice, what the

consequences will be, and nevertheless he does it,

careless and indifferent whether it distresses the other

Page 31 of 36

spouse or not The Court is, however not bound to draw

the inference. The presumption that a person intends the

natural consequences of his acts is one that may not

must-be drawn. If in all the circumstances it is not the

correct inference, then it should not be drawn. In cases

of this kind, if there is no desire to injure or inflict

misery on the other, the conduct only becomes cruelty

when the justifiable remonstrances of the innocent party

provoke resentment on the part of the other, which

evinces itself in actions or words actually or physically

directed at the innocent party.”

34.What constitutes cruelty in matrimonial matters has been well explained

in American Jurisprudence 2

nd

edition Vol. 24 page 206. It reads thus: -

“The question whether the misconduct complained of

constitute cruelty and the like for divorce purposes is

determined primarily by its effect upon the particular

person complaining of the acts. The question is not

whether the conduct would be cruel to a reasonable

person or a person of average or normal sensibilities,

but whether it would have that effect upon the

aggrieved spouse. That which may be cruel to one

person may be laughed off by another, and what may

not be cruel to an individual under one set of

circumstances may be extreme cruelty under another set

of circumstances.”

(Emphasis supplied)

35.In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in Mahmood Ali &

Ors. v. State of U.P & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950, authored by one of us

(J.B. Pardiwala, J.), the legal principle applicable apropos Section 482 of the

CrPC was examined. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes

before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482

CrPC or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to

Page 32 of 36

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.

36.For the foregoing reasons, we have reached to the conclusion that if the

criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the Appellant, the same

will be nothing short of abuse of process of law & travesty of justice. This is a

fit case wherein, the High Court should have exercised its inherent power under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings.

37.Before we close the matter, we would like to invite the attention of the

Legislature to the observations made by this Court almost 14 years ago in Preeti

Gupta (supra) as referred to in para 26 of this judgment. We once again

reproduce paras 34 and 35 respectively as under:

Page 33 of 36

“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.

35. The 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 of these

complaints have not only flooded the courts but also

have led 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. We

direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to

the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary,

Government of India who may place it before the

Hon'ble Minister for Law and Justice to take

appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.”

38.In the aforesaid context, we looked into Sections 85 and 86 respectively

of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which is to come into force with effect

from 1

st

July, 2024 so as to ascertain whether the Legislature has seriously

looked into the suggestions of this Court as made in Preeti Gupta (supra).

Sections 85 and 86 respectively are reproduced herein below:

“Husband or relative of husband of a woman

subjecting her to cruelty.

Page 34 of 36

85. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the

husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty

shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which

may extend to three years and shall also be liable to

fine.

Cruelty defined.

86. For the purposes of section 85, “cruelty” means—

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is

likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause

grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether

mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is

with a view to coercing her or any person related to her

to meet any unlawful demand for any property or

valuable security or is on account of failure by her or

any person related to her to meet such demand.”

39.The aforesaid is nothing but verbatim reproduction of Section 498A of

the IPC. The only difference is that the Explanation to Section 498A of the IPC,

is now by way of a separate provision, i.e., Section 86 of the Bhartiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023.

40. We request the Legislature to look into the issue as highlighted above

taking into consideration the pragmatic realities and consider making necessary

changes in Sections 85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023, before both the new provisions come into force.

41.In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside.

Page 35 of 36

42.The proceedings of CHI/1856/2021 arising from FIR No. 95 of 2021

dated 09.04.2021, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hisar

are hereby quashed.

43.Pending application(s) if any shall be disposed of.

44.We direct the Registry to send one copy each of this judgment to the

Union Law Secretary and Union Home Secretary, to the Government of India

who may place it before the Hon’ble Minister for Law and Justice as well as the

Hon’ble Minister for Home.

…………………………………..J.

(J.B. Pardiwala)

………………………………….J.

(Manoj Misra)

New Delhi;

Date: 3

rd

May, 2024.

Page 36 of 36