While sticking firmly to truth and so also simultaneously most vehemently opposing the gross abuse of Section 498A of the IPC, the Karnataka High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Sri XXX vs State of Karnataka & Anr in Criminal Petition No. 1803 of 2023 and cited in 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 291 that was reserved on 28.05.2024 and then finally pronounced on 28.06.2024 has in the fitness of things granted liberty to a husband to initiate criminal proceedings for the malicious prosecution under Section 211 of the IPC (Falsely accuse others of committing an offence) against his estranged wife. It must be noted that the wife had falsely claimed that the husband was suffering from Human Papilloma-Virus (HPV), which is a sexually transmitted disease (STD). We thus see that a Single Judge Bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition that had been filed by the husband and so also quashed the criminal proceedings that had been initiated against him by the wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and so also Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. To put it differently, we thus see that the Karnataka High Court has very rightly given the green signal to the husband to initiate criminal proceedings against wife for falsely accusing him of cruelty and falsely claiming that he was suffering from HPV. No denying it!

At the very outset, this progressive, pragmatic, pertinent and persuasive judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice M Nagaprasanna sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.19072 of 2022 pending before the XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore arising out of Crime No.35 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short).”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the facts of the case that:
Facts adumbrated are as follows:
The 2nd respondent/wife is the complainant and the petitioner/husband is accused No.1. The two get married on 29-05-2020. After about two months, the petitioner had to get back to United States of America as his H1B visa was to expire on 19-07-2020. Therefore, the petitioner leaves India to USA. It is the averment in the petition that on 21-01-2021, the complainant leaves the matrimonial house and then began to stay in a relatives’ house. The petitioner further avers in the petition that efforts were made by the petitioner to get a visa so that the complainant could travel to USA. The first appointment that the petitioner took was on 13-10-2020. The complainant does not go to visa office for processing visa formalities. The second appointment was taken on 02-03-2021; again the complainant misses the same. On 07-05-2021 the 3rd appointment was taken. The complainant again misses the same. The 4th appointment was taken on 24-05-2021, the complainant misses the same too.

The 5th appointment then emerges and visa is granted to the complainant on 22-09-2021. When the relationship between the two, according to the averment, turned irreconcilable, the petitioner/husband comes to India and files a petition seeking divorce in M.C.No. 6838 of 2021 before the Family Court and later, on 22-12-2021 also files a complaint before the jurisdictional Police against the wife alleging several acts. It is then on 03-02-2022 the impugned complaint is registered by the 2nd respondent/wife against the petitioner which becomes a crime in Crime No.35 of 2022 for offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The Police, after investigation, file a charge sheet before the concerned Court. The concerned Court, on the charge sheet, takes cognizance of the offences against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and registers C.C. No. 19072 of 2022 in terms of its order dated 14-06-2022. It is the registration of criminal case is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.”

To put it briefly, the Bench observes in para 7 that:
The factum of marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is a matter of record. Immediately after the marriage the husband travelling to USA for the purpose of renewal of H1B visa is again a matter of record. The relationship between the two appears to have turned sore. The husband comes to the shores of the nation and seeks to register a petition seeking annulment of marriage before the Family Court on 23-12-2021 in M.C.No.6838 of 2021. Prior to registration of the said petition, a complaint before the Commissioner of Police is also said to have been filed by the husband against the complainant/wife. The complaint is appended as document No.2 to the I.A. seeking vacation of the interim order. The complaint is said to be closed after the statement of the wife. Then emerges the impugned complaint.

A perusal at the complaint would indicate that the complainant laid emphasis upon infections of the husband on his genital areas which resembled as STD. Therefore, the husband is guilty of mental harassment dishonestly concealing his mental condition and breaching the trust of the wife. Minute details of certain allegations are made which are found in the complaint. The crux of the complaint was STD on him, making her leave her job after marriage and therefore, she would be dependent upon him. There is not a single sentence about the petitioner demanding dowry and indulging in cruelty for the purpose of demand of dowry. All the harassments that the complainant narrates are minor skirmishes between the husband and the wife.

The Police after investigation file a charge sheet. A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would also not indicate any demand of dowry or cruelty on the part of the husband. Prior to filing of the charge sheet by the Police, statements were recorded of the family members of the complainant. The mother herself in her statement speaks that at the time of discussions about the marriage, the parents of the petitioner and the petitioner had clearly indicated that they do not want any dowry and they are not demanding anything.

The same goes with the statements of others. What is given to the complainant, according to the complainant’s tradition, is 614 grams of silver and 160 grams of gold, not as demand but as a tradition of her family which at best can be said to be ‘Stridhana’. Such statements are galore. If the statements recorded of the mother and the brother of the complainant, the complaint, the charge sheet and summary of the charge sheet are read in tandem, what would unmistakably emerge is that, no demand for dowry was made and no cruelty that would become ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC would get attracted in the case at hand.”

Briefly stated, it is worth stating that the Bench states in para 9 that:
The Apex Court considers the entire spectrum of law and holds that the act of the complainant was in gross misuse and abuse of the process of law. The Apex Court further holds that it is the duty of the High Court to look into the FIR with care and little more closely and ascertain whether necessary ingredients to constitute the offence is disclosed or not, as many a time frivolous and vexatious proceedings are permitted to continue. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., has a duty to look into not only the complaint but all other attendant circumstances emerging from the record and if need be due care and circumspection be done, to read between the lines. This is exactly what this Court has undertaken in the case at hand.”

Most significantly, the Bench then mandates in para 10 what constitutes the real cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely and clearly that, “This Court has completely considered the complaint, summary of the charge sheet, the statements recorded and the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. All this exercise is undertaken only to arrive at a conclusion as to any of the ingredients of the offences are met or otherwise. The unmistakable conclusion is that, the complainant in gross misuse and abuse of law has set the criminal law into motion. Such frivolous cases registered by the wife have taken enormous judicial time, be it before the concerned Court or before this Court, and has led to enormous civil unrest, destruction of harmony and happiness in the society. It may not be that these would be the facts in every given case. The Court is only concerned about frivolous and vexatious litigations clogging the criminal justice delivery system, where genuine cases lie in cold storage. If the facts narrated hereinabove are noticed and as observed, the complainant has, in gross misuse and abuse of the process of the law, has set the criminal law into motion. Therefore, it becomes a fit case where the husband must be given liberty to initiate proceedings for malicious prosecution or initiate proceedings under Section 211 of the IPC. Liberty is thus reserved to the husband, for such action to be initiated in accordance with law, if he so desires.”

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 11 that:
For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

O R D E R

• Criminal Petition is allowed.
• Proceedings in C.C. No.19072 of 2022 pending before the XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore arising out of Crime No.35 of 2022 stand quashed qua the petitioner.
• It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against any other accused pending before any other fora.

Consequently, pending applications also stand disposed.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh