ACHIN GUPTA V STATE OF HARYANA

Question 1

XIII. ACHIN GUPTA V STATE OF HARYANA (FACTS)

Answer 1

At the beginning of the judgment that the FIR states the background of the Victim, calling her a “peace-loving and law-abiding woman”. The FIR also details that the accused had demanded and the victim’s family had spent about thirty lakhs rupees in my engagement ceremony and marriage as per the direction of the Accused persons towards furniture, jewellery, clothes and other household articles. They had also handed the stridhan to the accused, stating that it was hers and had to be given back to her.

Few days after the marriage when the victim went to her matrimonial house at that time the Accused persons taunted that your family has lowered down our image in the society and before relatives by giving less dowry and said to the victim that at least her family should have given a big car in the dowry because the husband is doing a good job and almost earns Rs. 1,50,000/- monthly and for him, would have gotten proposals from rich families who would have spent cores of rupees on the marriage.

When the victim stated that she would not be able to bring more dowry from her family as they had already spent what they had, the husband and the in-laws stated that if she wanted to live with them, she had to get the dowry fulfilled by her parents, or she would not be allowed inside.

The Victim, Tanu Gupta, was subjected to continuous abuse and harassment by her husband and his family members after her marriage. Soon after the wedding, her husband (Accused No. 1), along with his parents (Accused No. 2 and 3) and sister-in-law (Accused No. 4), began to taunt her and her family for giving what they considered an insufficient dowry. They specifically demanded that her family be gifted a bigger car, claiming that since her husband had a good salary, it was expected. The harassment escalated with threats that if these demands were not fulfilled, she would not be allowed to stay in her matrimonial home.

Along with dowry-related harassment, the Victim faced relentless verbal abuse and physical assault over household chores, especially cooking. Her husband, parents-in-law, and sister-in-law would deliberately assign her difficult tasks and then criticise and taunt her for not performing them perfectly. When she was unable to meet their impossible standards, they would verbally abuse and physically assault her.

Her mother-in-law (Accused No. 3) played an active role in the harassment, specifically demanding gold bangles from her family. When the Victim expressed that her family could not afford the demand, the mother-in-law abused and physically assaulted her. Similarly, her sister-in-law (Accused No. 4) demanded a diamond set from her family, warning that if the demand wasn’t met, the informant would not be allowed to live in the house. The sister-in-law also treated her like a domestic servant, abused her over minor matters, and instigated other family members against her.

The Victim’s husband (Accused No. 1) subjected her to repeated cruelty. He would verbally abuse and beat her, especially when under the influence of alcohol. He also monitored her personal freedom, including her phone calls, and did not allow her to leave the house without permission. His parents (Accused No.. 2 and 3) justified this cruelty by telling her that until she fulfilled their dowry expectations, she would have to endure the abuse. They, too, treated her like a servant and restricted her communication with the outside world.

Her brother-in-law (Accused No. 5) actively instigated her husband and the rest of the family against her and verbally abused her when she tried to defend herself. On multiple occasions, the entire family forcibly expelled her from her matrimonial home. Each time, her family had to intervene by giving more valuables in an attempt to settle the matter, but the harassment only escalated.

In addition to physical violence and emotional torture, the informant was financially exploited by her husband and in-laws (Accused Nos. 1 to 3). They would take away her entire salary and deny her pocket money. Whenever she asked for even basic personal expenses, she was met with beatings and was told to extract money from her parents instead.
After this, in 2012, when their son was born, the victim’s family gave 5 tolas of gold ornaments, 51 thousand rupees in cash, and spent about 1 lakh rupees on clothing, sweets and other items. But the Accused persons were not satisfied with the articles gifted at that time and were adamant on more.
In 2014, the victim also came to know that her husband was having an affair, and when she objected, the accused used to abuse and beat her and used to threaten that if you will tell this fact to anyone, he would kill her.

In 2019, the husband filed for a divorce and even forcefully got the documents signed by her. She was taken to her parents’ home, but the court’s order stated living in her matrimonial home again. In March 2020, during the pandemic, the husband took the minor son with him and did not come home for so many days and before leaving the house and had cut the water connection and the television connection of the house while the victim was still living in it. Then the parents of the victim tried to talk to the accused, but they kept demanding more dowry. When the victim demanded her jewellery, stridhan and for her minor son, they clearly refused and threatened that if she filed any complaint to the police against them, they would kill her.

Question 2

XIII. ACHIN GUPTA V STATE OF HARYANA (The argument of the Accused was)

Answer 2

The accused stated that the wife was never interested in living in the matrimonial home, and she kept pressuring her husband to live separately from his family. To get what she wanted, she caused trouble and harassment for her husband and his family members. And they have brought the appeal that the proceedings against them are an abuse of the court’s process because he was the one who filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty first, and she filed her FIR 11 months after she had left the matrimonial home. They stated that the FIR was filed with an oblique motive & by way of vengeance towards the Appellant. And that the allegations in the FIR are too vague and general in nature

Question 3

ACHIN GUPTA V STATE OF HARYANA (The argument of the Victim was)

Answer 3

The accused and his family continuously demanded additional dowry after the marriage and inflicted physical, mental and financial violence. After the filing of the divorce petition, the accused stopped paying anything towards her maintenance.

Question 4

XIII. ACHIN GUPTA V STATE OF HARYANA (The state also made submissions indicating)

Answer 4

The Police upon registration of the FIR, conducted a fair investigation. On completion of the investigation, the proceedings against 4 out of the 5 Accused came to be dropped. However, having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled, the investigating officer thought fit to file chargesheet against the husband.

Question 5

Judgment: [Judges Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra]

Answer 5

• The court noted that the FIR and the chargesheet papers indicate that the allegations levelled by the victim are quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. Also that the FIR mentions no specific date or time for the occurrence of the incident. And we were of the view that the FIR was nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition & also the domestic violence case. Because it was filed 2 years after the divorce petition was filed, and the court states that this indicates that the same was filed only to harass the accused and his family members.
• They also indicated that once the investigation is over and the chargesheet is filed, the FIR pales into insignificance. The court, thereafter, owes a duty to look into all the materials collected by the investigating agency in the form of a chargesheet. Basically, what the court is saying is that if the FIR or complaint, even when fully accepted as true, doesn’t show any crime or make a strong enough case, the case can be quashed. If the facts don’t reveal a serious offence or the allegations sound completely unrealistic, or if there’s a clear legal rule that blocks the case, the court can stop it. It also covers cases where the complaint was filed just to harass someone out of personal revenge or bad faith.
• Going back to what we had discussed, in the Preeti Gupta or Arnesh Kumar case, the Supreme Court in this case highlighted that there has been a sharp rise in matrimonial disputes, especially cases under Section 498-A IPC, which deals with cruelty against women by their husbands or in-laws. The Court pointed out that many of these complaints are filed hastily over small issues, sometimes with false or exaggerated claims, and this causes serious harm not just to the accused but also to family relationships. The judges stressed that lawyers and courts should handle such cases with care and responsibility, encouraging settlements when possible. The Court also suggested that the law itself might need to be re-examined and updated to prevent misuse, and asked the Law Commission and the Government to look into it.
• One paragraph specifically that the court added emphasis to stated, “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 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 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 different courts.”
• On the issue of quashing the FIR altogether The Supreme Court in context of the case observed, “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. … if the wife, on account of matrimonial disputes, decides to harass her husband and his family members, then the first thing she would ensure is to see that proper allegations are levelled in the First Information Report.”
• The court continued to state such points like that of “Many times, the parents, including the close relatives of the wife, make a mountain out of a molehill. Instead of salvaging the situation and making every possible endeavour to save the marriage, their action, either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings about complete destruction of the marriage on trivial issues. No sooner does the matter reach the Police than even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. A very technical and hyper-sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage.”
• The court also adds, “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 to hold the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives, or friends.”
• The court on the point of cruelty stated that misconduct like gambling, drunkenness, or crime — even if not directly targeted at the spouse — can amount to cruelty only if it’s done with the awareness or intention to cause harm or distress. If a person knows their behaviour is upsetting their spouse and continues regardless, the court may infer that it was meant to cause suffering, though it’s not a mandatory conclusion. The law recognises that intent isn’t always clear, so courts must look at the full situation. It also highlights that the test for cruelty isn’t based on what would upset a “reasonable” or “average” person, but on the effect the conduct has on the specific spouse involved. What might seem minor or tolerable to one person could be deeply harmful to another, especially depending on the circumstances of the relationship. So the court focuses on the individual emotional and psychological impact rather than applying a fixed standard.
• The court, as a result, quashed the criminal proceedings in the case. Also, they added that “a serious review of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law.”