How to protect Husband, his family and relatives from the false Cruelty and Dowry case? || Protection from Arrest in fake cruelty and dowry case || Protection in 498A case

How to protect Husband, his family and relatives from the false Cruelty and Dowry case??

Problem

In the recent times dowry complaints are more often common in society. A little dispute in the family may turn into the cruelty and dowry case against the husband, family member and some times even the distinct relatives. The First Information report has been lodged against all  the persons normally under section 85, 115(2), 351(1), 352 of the Bhartiya, Naya Sahita, 2023 ( previous section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, 1860) and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act

Thereafter police authorities has the power to arrest the persons against whom the First Information Report has been lodged. Most of the case family run from their native places to their relatives, to prevent arrest.

Know the Law

For ready reference sections 85, 115(2), 351(1), 352 of the Bhartiya, Naya Sahita, 2023 ( previous section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, 1860) and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act  are reproduced as under:

85. 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 pun­ished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

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.

115. Voluntarily causing hurt.- (1) Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said “voluntarily to cause hurt”. (2)Whoever, except in the case provided for by sub-section (1) of section 122 voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.

114. Hurt- who ever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.

Section  351 & 352 of the Bhartiya Nayay Sahita, 2023

351. Criminal intimidation

(1) Whoever threatens another by any means, with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

352. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. Whoever intentionally insults in any manner, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961:

Penalty for giving or taking dowry.

[(1)] If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable ** [with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than *** [five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]:

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than **** [five years].

 Section 4 in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

4. Penalty for demanding dowry. —If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:

Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.

 Solution to such a problem

There are many solutions in this case but the most efficient is to challenge the impugned First Information Report before the Hon’ble High Court.

All the persons against whom the FIR has lodged can directly challenge the First Information Report before the Hon’ble High Court under section 528 of Bhartiya Naya Suraksha Sahita (previous section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure)/under Article 226 of Constitution of India, in which the after considering the case, the court can prevent all the family members from the arrest and stay the further proceeding in the case. Thereafter the hands of the police authorities and  the district court would be tied  and they can not take any coercive action against any of person till final disposal of the case.

Supreme Court View

In the land mark case of "Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2012)" wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras- 20, 21 and 28 held as under:-

 

20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names which 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.

21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad 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: (SCC p. 698, para 12) "12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the 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 commission of 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 other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their 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." The view taken by the Judges in that matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.

 

28. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of Respondent 2 complainant without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings insofar as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The appeal is accordingly allowed."

 Conclusion

The best defence to fight against the false First Information Report is to challenge the same before Hon’ble High Court directly and get stay in proceeding from there in both, the arrest and criminal proceedings.