S.498A IPC | When Family Relations Are Sought To Be Brought Under Criminal Proceedings, Courts Should Be Cautious : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (today on January 07), while quashing criminal charges of cruelty, dowry demand and domestic violence against the present appellants, highlighted that invoking criminal laws in domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible materials may have disastrous consequences for families.

“Domestic relationships, such as those between family members, are guided by deeply ingrained social values and cultural expectations. These relationships are often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of respect, commitment, and emotional investment compared to other social or professional associations.

For the aforesaid reason, preservation of family relationship has always been emphasised upon. Thus, when family relationships are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the family bond, courts should be circumspect and judicious, and should allow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal offences.,” the bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh added.

The criminal case was for offences under under Section 498A, 506 Indian Penal Code  and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The appellant preferred this special leave petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them for, inter-alia, cruelty and dowry demand. The high court, in its impugned judgment, refused to quash the proceedings after observing that prima facie, the case is made out against the appellants. Challenging this, the appellants approached the Supreme Court. Pertinently, the appellants were the complainant's mother-in-law, mother-in-law's younger sister and her brother-in-law.

At the outset, the Court perused the charge sheet and the complaint. The Court noted that the investigation agency had placed its reliance upon the statements of the complainant, her parents and two panchayat elders. After examining their statements, the Court observed, with respect to harassment allegations, that the same were informed by the complainant to her parents. Thus, they had not witnessed the alleged harassment.

“It may also be noted that as regards the alleged act of beating of the complainant by her husband and other relatives mentioned by the parents, the complainant herself does not mention so in her complaints. Therefore, this allegation of beating of the complainant is something which has been added by the father and the mother of the complainant though they did not themselves witness the same.,” the Court added.

Further, the Court went on to examine the statement of the other two witnesses and observed that it was in the nature of hearsay evidence. Notably, the Court also brought to its notice that though these panchayat elders were residents of Telangana, it is not explained how they were present in the Panchayat meetings held in Chennai.

The Court then highlighted that though there are specific allegations against the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant, the allegations against the present appellants are general in nature. Cementing this background in place, the Court made the aforesaid observations and added:

“There may be situations where some of the family members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated to the victim, and may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence, unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation. Hence, implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts to them and proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law.”

The Court went on to observe that since statutes like the Protection from Domestic Violence Act take close relatives also within its scope, the courts should see that the allegations are specific and not general in nature. At the same time, the Court also acknowledged that genuine cases of cruelty and violence should be handled with “utmost sensitivity”.

“The purpose and mandate of the law to protect the victims of domestic violence is of paramount importance, and as such, a balance has to be struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are brought to book, all the family members or relatives are not indiscriminately brought within the criminal net in a sweeping manner.”

Before parting the Court also clarified that these observations will not be applied in cases where the relatives have actively exercised cruelty against the victim. Each and every case of domestic violence will thus depend on the peculiar facts obtaining in each case., the Court said.

In view of the above factual background, the Court said that no prima facie case has been made against the appellants. The evidence against them is ultimately the evidence of the complainant without any specific role assigned to them. Thus, the criminal proceedings initiated against them were quashed while also making it clear that the present findings will not affect the criminal proceedings against the other accused persons.

Appearances:

Appellant: Mr. Nitin Tambwekar, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Indrajeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, AOR Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR Mr. Shaik Mohmmad Haneef, Adv. Mr. Suneet Singh, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv

Respondent: Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Vineet George, Adv. Mr. Beno Bencigar, Adv. Mr. Parijat Kishore, AOR

Case Name: GEDDAM JHANSI & ANR. V. THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.9556 Of 2022

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Click here to read/ download the judgment

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