Indiscriminate Invocation Of S.498A IPC Trivialises Its Object: Bombay High Court Bemoans Misuse Of Law By Educated Women; Quashes FIR

The Bombay High Court while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) filed against a man and his family held that "indiscriminate" invoking of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by "highly educated" women complainants, only trivialises the object of the section 498A.

Sitting at the Nagpur seat, single-judge Justice Pravin Patil noted the "disturbing pattern" of educated women filing FIRs under section 498A against the husband and his family members only to settle scores.

"This Court cannot remain oblivious to the disturbing pattern that has emerged in recent times, wherein matrimonial prosecutions are frequently initiated as a pressure tactic during subsistence of marital disputes and negotiations," Justice Patil said in the order passed on February 20.

The judges further noticed that in several cases educated complainants invoke the penal provisions not merely against the spouse but against the entire family of the husband, including aged parents, married sisters and relatives residing separately without any proximate or credible allegations of their involvement.

"Such indiscriminate invocation of the criminal process trivialises the very object of Section 498-A IPC and erodes its moral and legal force, thereby doing disservice to genuine victims of cruelty," the judge held.

As such, allowing such prosecutions to proceed despite the absence of foundational facts, Justice Patil observed, would result in prolonged harassment, social stigma and irreparable prejudice to the persons who are ultimately found to be uninvolved.

"The inherent powers of this Court are intended to act as a constitutional safety, required to be invoked to avoid the innocent persons from prosecuting in the criminal offence," the judge opined.

While referring to the "laudable" object for which section 498A was introduced, Justice Patil said, "However, it is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A of IPC alleging harassment of married women. Most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide."

At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized, the judge pointed out while highlighting that at times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also the complainant.

"This Court has to exercise incidental power to quash even a non-compoundable case of private nature, if continuing the proceedings is found to be oppressive," the judge held.

As regards the facts of the case, the bench noted that the marriage between the Applicant and his estranged wife took place on June 15, 2020 during Covid19 surge. It noted that the applicant held a BTech, MBA degree while the wife held a BE Electronics.

It noted that soon after the marriage, the couple went to live in Pune, where they rented an apartment. However, soon they had differences of opinions on various issues and their relations turned sour.

Subsequently, when the husband's parents intervened and sought mediation through a mediator/match maker, the couple resolved their disputes. But the same lived short and quarrels against started to crop up. Therefore, the husband lodged a non-cognisable report (NCR) with the Pune Police alleging that his wife abused him and may end up filing a false case against him. He then left the rented house and shifted with his friend.

Soon thereafter, the wife shifted to Washim district with her in-laws (family members of the husband). She informed them that she was pregnant and when the husband learnt about the same he suggested her to abort the same since he was not willing to continue the relationship and had already filed for divorce.

Again, there was a meeting of both the families and it was agreed initially that the husband would be paying Rs 30 lakhs to the wife along with other articles but the amount was then enhanced to Rs 35 lakhs. Accordingly, the parties agreed for a mutual divorce and even the pregnancy was "consensually" aborted. However, after two months of all this, i.e. on July 1, 2024, the wife lodged a section 498A FIR against her husband and in-laws including her married sister-in-law and her husband, who lived in a separate district.

Justice Patil, while sifting the evidence on record, took note of the WhatsApp chat between the parties and said, "Perusal of this conversation clearly established the fact that wife has used unparliamentary language in her messages to the husband. So also these messages clarify the fact that their relations were so strained that there was no other way than to separate from each other. As such, the husband has taken the decision and filed the divorce proceeding against the wife."

The judge further noted that the allegations of cruelty under section 498A made by the wife fell short of establishing cruelty as per the provisions of the said section and instead the allegations indicated vague and omnibus allegations.

"In my opinion, in the present case the Applicants have placed on record sound, reasonable and indubitable material which is relevant and impeccable allegations levelled against them. The material, which is collected and produced before this Court, in my opinion, is sufficient to reject and overruled the assertions contained in the complaint," the judge said.

With these observations, the bench quashed the FIR.

Appearance:

Advocate AR Deshpande appeared for the Husband and In-Laws.

Advocate SS Deshpande represented the Complainant Wife.

Additional Public Prosecutor SV Kolhe represented the State.

Case Title: Vaibhav Gopaldas Mundada vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 1349 of 2024)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 76

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment