S.498A IPC | Ensure Husband's Distant Relatives Aren't Over-Implicated In Exaggerated Cases : Supreme Court Cautions Courts

The Supreme Court has sounded a word of caution to the Courts to ensure that distant relatives of a husband are not unnecessarily implicated in criminal cases filed at the instance of wife alleging domestic cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.A bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal made this observation while quashing the criminal proceedings against the cousin brother of the accused husband and the wife of the said cousin who were named as accused in the FIR lodged by the wife's father.The petitioners approached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to quash the case against them. Criticising the High Court's approach, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court was duty bound to examine if the implication of the distant relatives of the husband was an "over implication" and an "exaggerated version."In this context, the bench quoted the observations made in Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr (2010) 7 SCC 667 that "The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of sufferings of ignominy."The Court said that the above observation was in fact "a caution, against non-discharge of the duty to see whether implication of a person who is not a close relative of the family of the husband is over implication or whether allegation against any such person is an exaggerated version, in matrimonial disputes of this nature."The Court noted that the term "relative"has not been defined in the statute and, therefore, it must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Hence, normally, it can be taken to include, father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew, niece, grandson or granddaughter of any individual or the spouse of any person. In other words, a person related by blood, marriage or adoption.When the accusations are against a person who is not related by blood, marriage or adoption, the Courts have a duty to examine if the allegations are exaggerated."In such circumstances, normally against a person who is not falling under any of the aforesaid categories when allegations are raised, in the light of the observations made in Preeti Gupta's case (supra), the Court concerned owes an irrecusable duty to see whether such implication is over implication and/or whether the allegations against such a person is an exaggerated version," stated the judgment authored by Justice Ravikumar.Reference was also made to the judgment in Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr (2012) 10 SCC 741., which held that mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the tendency of over implication viz., to draw the entire members of the household in the domestic quarrel resulting in matrimonial dispute, especially when it happens soon after the wedding.Considering the fact that the petitioners were residing in a different city(Mohali) from the place of residence of the complainant's daughter (Jalandhar), the Court further observed :"In matters like the one at hand when relatives not residing in the same house where the alleged victim resides, the courts shall not stop consideration by merely looking into the question where the accused is a person falling within the ambit of the expression 'relative' for the purpose of Section 498-A, IPC, but should also consider whether it is a case of over implication or exaggerated version solely to implicate such person(s) to pressurise the main accused."The Court noted that the allegations were "general and omnibus" in nature and there was no prima facie material to show that the offences are made out. “It is evident that making them face the trial based on the allegations or accusation as referred above would be nothing but an abuse of process of court,” said the bench.The FIR was lodged soon after the husband initiated divorce proceedings against the wife. Apart from the husband and his parents, the complainant (wife's father) raised allegations against his cousin brother and wife as well relating to dowry harassment and cruelty. The High Court had declined interference noting that the final report has been filed.The Supreme Court observed that the filing of the final report cannot be a sole reason to decline interference."It is evident that making them to face the trial based on the allegations or accusation as referred above would be nothing but an abuse of process of court," the Court stated.For Appellant: AOR Ajay Choudhary and Vineet Bhagat; Advocates Manju Bhagat, Archna Midha, and Aksveer Singh SagguFor Respondents: AOR Karan Sharma; Advocates Rishabh Sharma and Harsh JaidkaCase : Payal Sharma v State of PunjabCitation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 924Click here to read the judgmentRelated - S. 498A IPC | Courts Must Identify...

S.498A IPC | Ensure Husband's Distant Relatives Aren't Over-Implicated In Exaggerated Cases : Supreme Court Cautions Courts

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

S.498A IPC | Ensure Husband's Distant Relatives Aren't Over-Implicated In Exaggerated Cases : Supreme Court Cautions Courts

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers