Institution Of Mariage: The Charges Against The Kahkashan Kausar Under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, And 498a Of The Ipc Were Dismissed After A Review Of The Fir's Facts And Content.

Case title:

KAHKASHAN KAUSAR V. STATE OF BIHAR

Date of Order:

8th of February 2022.

Bench:

Hon’ble Justice S. Abdul Nazeer & Hon’ble Justice Krishna Murari

Parties: 

Appellant- Kahkashan Kausar

Respondent- State of Bihar

SUBJECT

• Tarannum Akhtar, also known as Soni, initially lodged a complaint against her husband and in-laws with the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in the Purnea district. She accused them of demanding dowry and subjecting her to harassment. However, after examining the case, the court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish a case against the in-laws or her husband. Nonetheless, the court acknowledged the offense under Section 498A, 323 IPC against her husband, Md. Ikram, and issued summons. Eventually, the disagreement was resolved, and Soni returned to her marital home.
• Later on, Tarannum Akhtar, the respondent, submitted another written complaint seeking the registration of an FIR. She alleged that her spouse and family members had compelled her to provide a car as dowry and had threatened to terminate her pregnancy if their demands were not met. Tarannum Akhtar requested action under sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A, and Section 34 IPC against them.
• On April 1, 2019, the husband took legal action by filing a criminal writ case with the Patna High Court. He requested the quashing of the aforementioned FIR. However, his plea was denied. The Patna High Court determined that the FIR, on the face of it, indicated the commission of an offense, and therefore, it needed to be investigated by the police.
• Following this decision, the niece, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law of the husband filed a Special Leave Petition with the Supreme Court of India. They argued that the FIR had been filed with malicious intent and was solely intended to harass them.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Section 498A states that “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. For the purpose 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.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the accusations made against the in-laws, who are the appellants, broad and all-inclusive claims that can be dismissed?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

• The appellant argued that the police officers filed an FIR without conducting any initial investigation, which goes against a previous judgment by the Honorable Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors. 
• Additionally, the appellants presented evidence that in 2017, the wife, who is the respondent in this case, filed a criminal complaint with similar allegations. 
• After examining the evidence, the Judicial Magistrate summoned only the husband, as the allegations made against the appellants in this case were considered broad and all-inclusive in nature.
• Moreover, the argument put forth is that the FIR in question was lodged with a malicious intent, primarily with the purpose of causing annoyance to the husband and the in-laws. 
• It is contended that this aspect should be taken into consideration when addressing the matter.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• The State of Bihar argues that the current FIR pertains to offenses committed in 2019, despite the husband's assurance to the Chief Judge of Purnea he would not subject the wife to dowry harassment and would treat her fairly.
• However, the husband and appellants have persisted in their dowry demands and have even threatened to physically harm the wife's pregnancy. 
• In response to the mention of a previous FIR lodged in 2017, the state asserts that these demands persisted even after the husband made assurances before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Purnea. Therefore, the state argues that this FIR should be investigated independently from the FIR filed in 2017.
• Furthermore, it is contended that the police actually conducted an investigation before registering the FIR, thereby refuting the claim that it violated the principles established in the Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. & Others.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

• The Court has previously expressed concern about the abuse of Section 498A IPC in a number of instances. According to the court, if claims of this sort are not investigated, the legal system would be abused. 
• Because there is no evidence supporting them, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has instructed the courts in its rulings to stop proceedings against the husband's family and in-laws.
• The court reached the decision that the claims of the FIR are generic in character and cannot be ascribed to any specific person, which fails to determine the precise roles played by the appellants after evaluating the facts, evidence, circumstances, and contents of the FIR.
• The broad and general accusations made against the appellants are without validity, in their opinion. It would be an abuse of the judicial system to permit prosecution in the absence of particular accusations made against the inlaws appellants. 
• The court further declared that the FIR claiming dowry demand will establish a new cause of action because it is distinct from and independent from the earlier FIR.
• The charges leveled against the appellants under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, and 498A of the IPC were dismissed after a review of the FIR's facts and content.
• Supreme Court ruled in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Others that S. 498A of the Penal Code is not supra vires or unconstitutional. Legislation is not automatically invalidated by the mere possibility of abuse of a legal provision. 
• Therefore, the argument that S. 498A lacks a legitimate legal or constitutional basis is unpersuasive. Preventing the dowry threat is the goal of the provisions. 
• However, other examples of complaints that were made with a covert intention and were not sincere have come to light. In these situations, the embarrassment experienced during and before the trial is not always erased by the accused's acquittal.

CONCLUSION

• Sometimes unfavorable media attention makes things worse. What corrective actions can be made to stop abuse of the well-intentioned provision is the question that arises as a result. Simply because a rule is valid and within the bounds of the law does not give unscrupulous individuals permission to foment animosity or engage in harassment. 
• Therefore, it might be necessary for the legislature to track down those who make baseless complaints or accusations. The problem must be handled by the courts within the current framework up until that point.
• The role of women in society has changed thanks to laws that are designed to support them, yet everything in this world has advantages and disadvantages, and laws like these are no exception. 
• The implementation of harsh penalties for those who break the law is one strategy to stop people from abusing these rules. 
• It should be presented in a way that prevents the real victim from being afraid of being proven wrong and receiving punishment, but someone acting maliciously should be afraid of receiving punishment.