Husband's Relatives Can't Be Dragged Into Matrimonial Disputes In Absence Of Specific Instances Of Their Involvement In Crime: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Monday ruled that in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths the relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar was collectively hearing petitions seeking indulgence of the court to invoke its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing FIR for alleged offences under Section 498A and 406 of IPC. The petitioners in one of the plea happened to be the brother, sister and brother-in-law of the husband of the complainant whereas petitioner in the second plea happened to be the husband of the complainant. The petitioners challenged the impugned FIR on the ground that as per own showing of the complainant, she was thrown out of her matrimonial house on 29.09.2015 but she has filed the impugned FIR on 18.10.2021, i.e. more than six years after the occurrence and therefore the instant prosecution is barred in terms of the provisions contained in Section 468 of the CrPC. The petitioners further contended that the impugned FIR and the material collected by the investigating agency during investigation of the case did not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioners and complainant has roped in all the relatives of her husband without there being any specific allegations against them. Adjudicating upon the matter Justice Dhar observed that it is clear that on the basis of the omnibus allegations made in the impugned FIR as well as statements of prosecution witnesses recorded during investigation of the case, the petitioners who happen to be relatives of the husband of the complainant, cannot be roped in. These allegations are required to be carefully scrutinized before initiation of prosecution against the relatives of the husband and there being no mention of the specific instances of cruelty alleged to have been committed by the relatives of the husband in the instant case, the prosecution against them cannot be sustained, the bench noted. "However, the same cannot be said about the petitioner husband of the complainant, against whom there are specific allegations in the statements of the prosecution witnesses" Justice Dhar observed. In order to buttress the said position of law the bench found it worthwhile to record the observations of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P, (2018) 10 SCC 472, wherein while dealing with the issue regarding the tendency of aggrieved wives to rope in all the relatives of the husband in the cases relating to matrimonial disputes, it was observed: "It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that 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. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement." Deliberating on the issue the bench also placed strong reliance on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) wherein the Supreme Court recorded its displeasure as under. "The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested." While dealing with the other moot question as to whether it was open to the investigating agency to undertake investigation keeping in view the fact that the alleged acts of misappropriation and cruelty are stated to have taken place about six years prior to the lodging of the FIR, the bench observed Section 468 of the CrPC creates a bar to the taking of cognizance after a lapse of period of limitation and cognizance of an offence is taken only after final report of investigation of the FIR is laid before the Court. Registration of an FIR does not amount to taking of cognizance and therefore the bar contained in Section 468 of the CrPC cannot be made applicable to the registration of FIR and undertaking investigation into an offence, the bench underscored. For the foregoing reasons the FIR against the relatives of the husband of the complainant was quashed whereas the petition filed by the husband was dismissed as lacking merit. ...

Husband's Relatives Can't Be Dragged Into Matrimonial Disputes In Absence Of Specific Instances Of Their Involvement In Crime: J&K&L High Court

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

Tags