Inconsistent decisions from different benches of a court shake the public trust in judiciary and reduce litigation to a punter’s game, the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday..The Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with a case of matrimonial cruelty in which a bench of Karnataka High Court had quashed criminal proceedings against the husband but a co-ordinate bench had permitted the case to go on against certain in-laws.The top court found it inexplicable that though the order refusing to quash the proceedings against some of the in-laws was passed earlier, the High Court did not refer to it when it quashed the proceedings against the husband.It was incumbent on the judge to refer to the earlier decision of the co-ordinate bench and distinguish the reasons therein to arrive at a different conclusion, the Court added."Failure to do so infracts judicial propriety and discipline. Consistency in judicial outcomes is the hallmark of a responsible judiciary. Inconsistent decisions coming out from different benches shake public trust and reduce litigation to a punter’s game. It gives rise to various insidious sharp practices like forum shopping spoiling the clear stream of justice. Impugned order suffers from the vice of judicial caprice and arbitrariness and is liable to be set aside also on this score," it stressed..The judgment was passed on an appeal moved by the complainant-wife whose case under Section 498A and other provisions of Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the husband was quashed by the High Court in 2024.The couple married in 2012 and have two children. In 2020, she and other relatives at her parental home were allegedly assaulted by the in-laws, leading to registration of the case. The woman's in-laws then moved the High Court which quashed the proceedings against the septuagenarian parents-in-law but permitted the case to continue against other in-laws. When the husband also later approached the High Court, a co-ordinate bench quashed the proceedings against him. The woman then moved the top court..Taking exception to the contradictory decisions of the High Court, the top court said,"The case at hand portrays a disturbing picture. While one judge refused to quash proceeding against the in-laws, inter alia, observing wound certificate demonstrates the appellant was assaulted and suffered simple injuries, another judge by the impugned order quashed the proceeding against respondent- husband holding the medical certificate was not consistent with the allegations in the complaint i.e. the wound certificate does not show the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon."The Court then proceeded to look at the merits of the appeal and found that the judge, who quashed the proceedings against the husband, had erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility of the allegations in the FIR/Chargesheet. "The Judge compared the nature of assault described in the FIR vis-à-vis wound certificate and came to a finding that the allegations are untrue. In doing so, the Judge had undertaken a mini trial to quash the proceeding which is impermissible in law," it observed. In this context, the top court emphasized that it has repeatedly forbidden the High Courts from embarking on a ‘mini trial’ in exercise of their inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings..Disagreeing with the findings of the High Court, the apex court found that the allegation of throwing chilli powder and assault against the woman by her husband and other in-laws was supported not only by the wound certificate but also the statement of a neighbour. Thus, the Court said it was not a case of no legal evidence where the High Court could have quashed the proceedings."In support of quashing the Judge had also observed that it is unclear from the allegations who had perpetrated the assault and the prosecution during the pendency of a matrimonial suit was nothing but an abuse of process of Court. These grounds are equally untenable," it added..Further, the Court also criticized the High Court for its finding that the proceeding was malicious and an abuse of the process of court as proceedings were also pending before the matrimonial court."Offences involving cruelty on wife would invariably arise out of matrimonial disputes. Accordingly, pendency of matrimonial proceeding between the parties cannot per se lead to an inference that institution of criminal proceeding alleging assault supported by medical evidence and independent witness is a product of malice and abuse of court," it said..The Court thus quashed the High Court order and revived the proceedings against the husband. .Advocates Rudrali Patil, Shaantanu Devansh, Suhas Hosamani, Rushika Patil, Sabeel Ahmed and Anshuman represented the appellant-wife.Advocate DL Chidananda represented the State.Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli with advocates Abhishek Kanyalur, Suraj Kaushik Nanda Kumar K B, Akhila Wali and Akash Kukreja of Nuli & Nuli represented the respondent-husband..[Read Judgment]
