Relative's Mere Presence In Matrimonial Home Or Passive Familial Association Can't Attract S.498A IPC: Rajasthan High Court

While setting aside summons under Section 498-A IPC against some family members of a married man, the Rajasthan High Court has held that criminal liability could not be inferred merely on the basis of a relative's presence in the matrimonial house in absence of any precise attribution of role to such family members in the allegations of cruelty. The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that criminality attaches to intentional conduct and not to passive familial association. In offences under Section 498-A IPC, blanket allegations against every relative of the husband, without delineation of independent conduct, did not satisfy the threshold required for criminal prosecution. The Court was hearing a revision petition filed against the order of the trial court that took cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Section 498-A. The matter pertained to death of the complainant's daughter, after 10 years of marriage, at her matrimonial house. It was alleged that the husband and his father were in the habit of gambling, and were pressurizing the deceased to get money from her house. In this background, she was found dead at her home. The allegations suggested pressure and harassment by her husband and in-laws. The police filed charge sheet only against the husband as no material was found against the remaining family members. During trial, application under Section 319, CrPC was moved seeking summoning of remaining family members which was allowed by the trial court. After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the allegation of cruelty and harassment were specifically against the husband and his father, with specific acts of monetary demands being attributed to them. Against other members, there were no specific assertions of any independent act. Further, it was taken into account that the charge sheet was also filed only against the husband. The Court held that even though the opinion of the investigating agency did not bind the Court, the investigative conclusion was a relevant consideration. The Court also considered that in ten years of marriage, there were no past instances of complaint or documented grievance of the deceased. It was opined, “While absence of prior complaint is not conclusive proof of absence of cruelty, it is nonetheless a factor that weighs in judicial evaluation, particularly when the allegations against certain relatives lack specificity. Criminal liability cannot be inferred on the basis of mere presence in the matrimonial home. The maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea reminds us that criminality attaches to intentional conduct, not to passive familial association.”In this background, the court stated that jurisdiction under Section 319 was not routine, but an extraordinary enabling provision. The amplitude of power is wide, and had to be exercised restrictively by judicially evolved safeguards. It was observed that the court had to be cautious to not convert this extraordinary power into an appellate review of investigative discretion unless compelling evidences surfaced during trial. In this light, the revision petition was partly allowed by allowing cognizance only against the husband's father, and setting it aside against all other family members. Title: RS & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Anr. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 98Click Here To Read/Download Order

Relative's Mere Presence In Matrimonial Home Or Passive Familial Association Can't Attract S.498A IPC: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

Tags