Case Name: Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and Ors
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2379 OF 2024
Dated: May 3, 2024
Quorum: Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mirsa
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case concerns the First Informant Tanu Gupta, who is a resident of Hisar, the wife of Achin Gupta and the daughter of Harish Manocha. She is a peace-loving and law-abiding woman, and she married Accused No. 1 in New Delhi in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It was said that the First Informant suffered physical and psychological harm as a result of the Appellant and his family members’ claimed dowry demands. According to the FIR, the First Informant’s family gave the Appellant and his family her “stridhan” at the time of the marriage and spent a significant amount of money on it.
But not long after they were married, the First Informant became the target of harassment from the Appellant and his family, who claimed she hadn’t fulfilled her responsibilities as a wife and daughter-in-law and also put pressure on her to pay additional money. According to the allegations, the appellant was a habitual drunkard who would forcefully touch the First Informant and mistreat her.
The Appellant and his family would retain the First Informant’s full income while she worked as an assistant professor, according to her allegations. Every time the First Informant asked for money, the Appellant would physically attack her and tell her that she should ask her family to cover her personal costs.
The Appellant is also accused of having an extramarital affair with a different woman, and he threatened to harm the First Informant if she revealed his affair to others. After carrying on with the extramarital affair for a considerable amount of time, the appellant filed for divorce in July 2019 on completely false and unfounded allegations.
The Appellant is accused of disconnecting the water supply at their married residence and removing their young son in the early days of the Covid-19 lockdown. The First Informant was forced to return to her parents after marrying and was left with no other choice in these circumstances.
The appellant in this case filed a quashing petition with the High Court in an attempt to have the criminal proceedings halted. In exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (also known as the “Cr.P.C.”), the High Court rejected to quash the criminal proceedings in its judgement and order dated April 5, 2022 (also known as the “impugned order”). Because of the aforementioned, the appellant is presenting the current appeal to this court.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- Section 323 of IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. If someone intentionally causes harm, with the exception of the situations allowed by section 334, they may be penalised with a fine of up to one thousand rupees, one year’s worth of imprisonment of any kind, or both.
- Section 406 of IPC: Punishment for criminal breach of trust. If a person violates the law by intentionally betraying another person, they may be sentenced to three years in prison, a fine, or both.
- Section 498A of IPC: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Anyone who submits a woman to cruelty while she is her spouse or a family member of her husband faces up to three years in prison as well as a fine.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:
The learned counsel for the appellant argues that Both a domestic abuse case and a divorce petition had been filed by the appellant and his family against the First Informant in 2019 and 2020, respectively. The First Informant left her married house more than 11 months ago, and the FIR No. 95 of 2021, dated April 9, 2021, was only filed in response to this when she was served with a summons in the domestic abuse case. Why there has been such a delay has not been explained.
As per the allegations of the appellants The purpose of filing the FIR was to exact revenge on the appellant, albeit a covert one. For more than a decade, the Appellant and the First Informant were wed.
The appellant claimed that there were no particular instances of criminal behaviour, only broad, general accusations that formed the basis of the criminal charges. It was a misuse of the court system to file a criminal trial based only on such broad accusations. In an effort to stop the abuse of the legal system in marriage cases, the appellant asked the court for relief.
The appellant’s specific argument was that the complainant, the second respondent, was uninformed of the events detailed in the First Information Report (FIR).The appellant made it clear that neither the second respondent nor any other parties had filed a civil lawsuit against him. The purpose of this argument was to refute the accuracy of the claims stated in the First Information Report.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
The learned counsel representing the respondents argued that After the marriage, the appellant and his family insisted on receiving more money as dowry. The First Informant used to get beat up and have her entire income taken away by them.
They also contended that the appellant had no choice but to leave the married residence and go back to her parents’ house in Hisar after the divorce petition was filed because she was no longer receiving any maintenance payments and had disconnected essential utilities like the water supply.
It was also contended that With a different woman, the appellant had an affair. She remained silent and didn’t let the others know about it, only wanting to keep the marriage intact. It is utterly baseless and vexatious that a domestic abuse case has been brought against the First Informant. It was not disclosed to this Court by the appellant that he had withdrawn the divorce action he had taken against the First Informant.
The learned counsel for the state contended that after receiving the first information report, the police opened a fair investigation. After the inquiry was finished, the cases against four of the five suspects were dropped. Nevertheless, considering the claims made, the investigating officer felt it was appropriate to submit a charge sheet against the appellant.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The appellant filed for divorce in July 2019 on the grounds of cruelty, and the court noted this after receiving notice of it. Due to the appellant’s difficulty caring for his child and making the lengthy trip to Hisar on the dates set by the court, the divorce petition was dropped. Under the terms of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the appellant’s mother was required to file a domestic violence complaint against the First Informant in October 2020.
The court further noted that the First Informant’s claims are quite broad, general, and imprecise, and they do not specifically mention any instances of illegal behaviour, based on a plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet documents.
The court observed that it was also important to remember that no precise time or date of the alleged incident or offence has been included in the FIR. Even the police decided it was appropriate to end the investigation into the other appellant family members. Consequently, we believe that the First Information Report (FIR) filed by Respondent No. 2 was only a response to the divorce petition and the domestic abuse case.
The court also noted that The field of investigating an offence was solely reserved for Police Officers, who had unrestricted authority in that regard as long as their investigative powers regarding cognizable offences were lawfully used in strict accordance with Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. In carrying out its duties under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the court does not serve as an appellate or revisional court.
The inherent jurisdiction under the Section, while broad, should only be used when it is warranted by the strict criteria outlined in the Section itself. It should be used rarely, cautiously, and with prudence. It was to be used ex debito justitiae to carry out substantial and true justice, the administration of which is the exclusive function of courts. The court’s authority is intended to further justice, and should any attempt be made to misuse it in order to bring about injustice, the court has the right to stop it. Allowing any activity to occur that would obstruct the advancement of justice and lead to injustice would be an abuse of the legal system.
In order to prevent both of the new provisions from going into effect, the court asked the Legislature to investigate the above-highlighted issue, taking into account the practical realities, and consider making the required adjustments in Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The appeal was so granted as a result of its success. It is now decided to set aside the contested decision and order from the High Court.
In order for the Government of India to present this ruling to the Honourable Ministers of Law and Justice and Home, the court instructed the Registry to deliver one copy of each decision to the Union Law Secretary and Union Home Secretary.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora.
