Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana

2024 INSC 369

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Case: Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4912 of 2022)
Decided: 3 May 2024
Bench: J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra (judgment by J.B. Pardiwala, J.)
Citation: 2024 INSC 369
Provisions: Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 498A and its Explanation (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, ss. 85 and 86)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 482

Headnote

IPC s. 498A (BNS ss. 85-86) · Cruelty: trivial quarrels and mechanical application of the section · General and sweeping allegations in matrimonial prosecution · Quashing under CrPC s. 482 · Comparison of BNS ss. 85 and 86 with IPC s. 498A

The case, in the Court's words

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. [para 9]

Held

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. [para 25]
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. [para 31]
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 all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. [para 32]
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. [para 32]
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. [para 39]
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. [para 40]

Result

In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside. [para 41]

Editorial note: subsequent treatment

Editorial note: the Court compared BNS ss. 85 and 86 with IPC s. 498A in paras 38 to 40. It was cited among decisions on misuse of s. 498A in Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka (2026 INSC 784) and its para 20 was quoted in Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra (2024 INSC 737).

The headnote consists of extracts from the Court's judgment, selected by The Daily Bench for convenience. The selection is not part of the judgment, is not a law report and should not be cited. It may contain errors; rely on the official judgment. Library reference TDB-LL BNS-85-86/02 is our own cataloguing label and is not a citation.