558 [2022]REPORTS

SUPREME COURT 1 S.C.R. 558 [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM & ORS.

v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2022)
B 08 FEBRUARY, 2022
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.498-A – Purpose of enactment of s.498-
A and misuse of the said section – Discussed.
C Penal Code, 1860: s.498-A – Complaint against in-laws –
Complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and
threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’ – No specific and
distinct allegations made against either of the accused i.e., none of
the appellants were attributed any specific role in furtherance of
the general allegations made against them – Allegations were,
D
therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have
been made out on account of small skirmishes – Therefore, it would
be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations
of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in
a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are
E forced to undergo trial.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at
preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and
her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, in
F recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also
increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and
friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than
ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ
provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal
G scores against the husband and his relatives. This court has at
numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section
498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of
the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long
term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the

H
558
 KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM v. STATE OF BIHAR 559

accused. False implication by way of general omnibus allegations A

made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would
result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by
way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding
against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima
facie case is made out against them. In the facts of this case,
B
upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR, it is revealed that
general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The
complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and
threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no
specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of
the appellants. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails C
to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the
offence. [Paras 12, 18, 19][563-G-H; 567-E-H; 568-A-B]
Rajesh Sharma and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2018)
10 SCC 472; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr.
(2014) 8 SCC 273 : [2014] 8 SCR 128; Preeti Gupta D
& Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667
: [2010] 9 SCR 1168; Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State
of UP & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 741: [2012] 9 SCR 641;
K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC
452 – relied on.
E
Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. & Ors. (2014) 2
SCC1 : [2013] 14 SCR 713; Social Action Forum for
Manav Adhikar & Anr. v. Union of India, Ministry of
Law And Justice & Ors. (2018) 10 SCC 443 : [2018]
12 SCR 19; Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi &
Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 259 : [1993] 3 SCR 930 – referred F
to.
Case Law Reference
[2013] 14 SCR 713 referred to Para 6
[2018] 12 SCR 19 referred to Para 7 G
[1993] 3 SCR 930 referred to Para 10
(2018) 10 SCC 472 relied on Para 13

H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A [2014] 8 SCR 128 relied on Para 14

[2010] 9 SCR 1168 relied on Para 15
[2012] 9 SCR 641 relied on Para 16
(2018) 14 SCC 452 relied on Para 17
B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
195 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1492 of
2019.
C Smarhar Singh, Ms. Shweta Kumari, Advs. for the Appellants.
Samir Ali Khan, Abhay Kumar, Sriharsh Nahush Bundela, Kumar
Milind, Shagun Ruhil, Vishal Nautiyal, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
D
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
13.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Patna in Criminal Writ Petition
No. 1492 of 2019, filed by the Appellants under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’) challenging
E
the FIR No. 248/2019 dated 01.04.2019 implicating the Appellants for
offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). The High
Court vide order impugned herein dismissed the same.
Factual Matrix
F
3. The Complainant (Respondent No. 5 herein) Tarannum Akhtar
@ Soni, was married to Md. Ikram on 18.09.17. The appellants herein
are the in-laws of Respondent No. 5. On 11.12.17, the said Respondent
initially instituted a criminal complaint against her husband and the
appellants before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea alleging
G demand for dowry and harassment. Thereafter, when the file was put
up before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court, Purnea, for passing
order at the stage of issuance of summon, the Ld. Magistrate concluded
that upon perusal of material evidence no prima-facie case was made
against the in-laws and that the allegations levelled against them were
not specific in nature. The said court, however, took cognizance for the
H
 KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM v. STATE OF BIHAR 561
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

offence under section 498A, 323 IPC against the husband Md. Ikram, A
and issued summons. This dispute was eventually resolved and
Respondent No. 5 herein came back to the matrimonial home.
4. Subsequently, on 01.04.19, Respondent No. 5 herein, gave
another written complaint for registration of FIR under sections 341,
323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 IPC against her husband Md. B
Ikram and the appellants herein. The complaint inter-alia alleged that all
the accused were pressurizing the Respondent wife herein to purchase
a car as dowry, and threatened to forcibly terminate her pregnancy if
the demands were not met.
5. Aggrieved, the Husband and appellant herein filed a criminal
C
writ petition before the Patna High Court, for quashing of the said FIR
dated 01.04.19, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment. The High
Court observed that the averments made in the FIR prima-facie disclosed
commission of an offence and therefore the matter was required to be
investigated by the police. The Appellants herein, being the niece
(Respondent No. 1), Mother in-law (Respondent No. 2), Sister in-law D
(Respondent No. 3), and brother in law (Respondent No. 4) have thereby
approached this court by way of the present Special Leave Petition.
Contentions made by the Appellants
6. The counsel for the Appellants herein contends, that the Police
Officer was duty bound to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering E
the FIR as this instant case falls within the categories of cases on which
a preliminary enquiry may be made, as mandated by this court in Lalita
Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors.1 .
7. It is also submitted that previously in the year 2017, the
Respondent wife had instituted a criminal complaint on similar allegations, F
whereby the Ld. Judicial Magistrate after considering the evidence issued
summons only against the husband, and found that the allegations made
against the appellants herein were omnibus in nature. Further, it is
submitted that the FIR in question has been made with a revengeful
intent, merely to harass the Appellant in-laws herein, and should be dealt
G
with accordingly. Reliance is placed on Social Action Forum for Manav
Adhikar & Anr. Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law And Justice &
Ors.2, wherein it was observed:-

1
(2014) 2 SCC 1
2
(2018) 10 SCC 443 H
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A “4. Regarding the constitutionality of Section 498-A IPC, in

Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others , it was
held by the Supreme Court:-
“Provision of S. 498A of Penal Code is not unconstitutional
and ultra vires. Mere possibility of abuse of a provision of
B law does not per se invalidate a legislation. Hence plea that
S. 498A has no legal or constitutional foundation is not
tenable. The object of the provisions is prevention of the dowry
menace. But many instances have come to light where the
complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique
C motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all
cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial.
Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The
question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken
to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely
because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does
D not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal
vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become
necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers
of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately
dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the
E situation within the existing frame-work.”
Contention made by Respondent No. 1 – State of Bihar
8. Respondent No. 1 herein i.e., the State of Bihar, contends that
the present FIR pertains to offences committed in the year 2019, after
assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the Ld. Principal
F Judge Purnea, to not harass the Respondent wife for dowry, and treat
her properly. However, the husband and appellants, despite the assurances,
have continued their demand for dowry and threatened with forcefully
terminating the Respondent wife’s pregnancy. These acts constitute a
fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated
G 01.04.19, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition
of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17. Moreover, an investigation was carried
out pursuant to the FIR and the case has been found true against all
accused persons, therefore Lalita Kumari (Supra) will not apply in the
present case.

H
 KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM v. STATE OF BIHAR 563
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

Contentions made by Respondent No 5 – Complainant Wife A

9. Respondent No. 5 contends that of the total seven accused, the
FIR in question was challenged by only five accused including her husband.
It is argued that the impugned order is evidently accepted by the accused
husband Md. Ikram @Sikandar as he has not challenged the impugned
High Court judgment. Further, as far as involvement of the four accused B
Appellant in-laws is concerned, it is not only reflected from the averments
made in the FIR, but also corroborated from the oral and documentary
evidence collected by the investigating officer during investigation,
culminating into filing of charge-sheet against all seven accused including
the four Appellants herein. The allegations thus made in the FIR are
sufficient to make out a prima facie case, and non-mentioning of pendency C
of Complaint case of year 2017, at the time of filing the complaint 01.04.19
is not fatal for the case of the prosecution.
10. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are
serious in nature and the Respondent wife has been repeatedly tortured
physically and mentally in order to fulfil the demand for dowry. Further, D
even if the contentions made by the Respondent No. 5 herein are disputed,
by the Appellant in-laws, their veracity can be tested in trial before the
Trial Court. It is further contended that this court has also taken a
consistent view with regard to exercise of power under S. 482 Cr.P.C.,
in Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.3, wherein it has E
been clearly held that even if a prima facie case is made out disclosing
the ingredients of an offence, Court should not quash the complaint.
Therefore, the impugned order can in no way be termed as perverse,
cryptic or erroneous and therefore warrant no interference by this
Hon’ble Court.
F
Issue Involved
11. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by
the Appellants and Respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost
issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether
allegations made against the in-laws Appellants are in the nature of general
omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed? G

12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content
of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation
of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon
3
(1999) 3 SCC 259 H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state

intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial
litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a
greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage,
now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ
provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores
B
against the husband and his relatives.
13. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs.
State of U.P. & Anr.4, has observed:-
“14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the
C laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband
or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty
had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as
mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act
46 of 1983. The expression ‘cruelty’ in Section 498A covers
conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause
D grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or
harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful
demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number
of cases continue to be filed under already referred to some
of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court
E had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are
filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of
such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the
complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized.
At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not
only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for
F arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.”
14. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh
Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.5, it was also observed:-
“4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes
in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered
G in this country. Section 498-A 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 IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable
4
(2018) 10 SCC 472
H 5
(2014) 8 SCC 273
 KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM v. STATE OF BIHAR 565
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the A

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
B
for decades are arrested.”
15. Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand &
Anr.6, it has also been observed:-
“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these
complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of C
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.
D
33. 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 E
learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession
must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every
complaint under section 498A 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 F
discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure
that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society
remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure
that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the
G
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.

6
(2010) 7 SCC 667 H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A 35. 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
B
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
C 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.
36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials
D 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.”
E
16. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr.7, it was
observed:-
“21. 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
F vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. 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
G 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
7
H (2012) 10 SCC 741
 KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM v. STATE OF BIHAR 567
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt A

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
B
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 C
different courts.” The view taken by the judges in this matter
was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.”
17. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana8, it
was also observed that:-
“6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the D
distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes
and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not
be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific
instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.”
18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this E
court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of
section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of
the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term
ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is
further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way F
of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute,
if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore,
this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding
against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie
case is made out against them.
G
19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents
of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are
levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused
harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’.
8
(2018) 14 SCC 452 H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against

either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been
attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made
against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain
the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The
allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to
B
have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband
is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High
court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against
him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations
made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant
C prosecution.
20. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and
demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR. Respondent No. 1
i.e., the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained to offences
committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband
D Md. Ikram before the Ld. Principal Judge Purnea, to not harass the
Respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However,
despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and
harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause
of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 01.04.19, is
distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an
E earlier FIR dated 11.12.17.
21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may
constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions,
the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-
laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of
F clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an
abuse of the process of law.
22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances
and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants,
it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations
G of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a
situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to
undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances,
that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe
scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be
H discouraged.
 KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM v. STATE OF BIHAR 569
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

23. In view of the above facts and discussions, the impugned A

order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Patna is set aside.
The impugned F.I.R. No. 248 of 2019 against the Appellants under
Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 IPC stands quashed.
24. As a result, appeal stands allowed.
B
Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.