Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan
Introduction
The Supreme Court, in this matrimonial dispute, quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC against the parents-in-law of the complainant-wife. The Court emphasized the need for courts to be cautious while accepting allegations at face value, especially when made after years of marriage and in the backdrop of divorce litigation. It held that generic and delayed allegations against relatives should not result in criminal trials unless supported by specific instances of cruelty or harassment.
- Section 498A, Indian Penal Code (IPC)(Now Section 85 of BNS,2023): Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband
- Section 411 IPC(Now Section 317(2) of BNS, 2023): Dishonestly receiving stolen property
- Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)(Now Section 528 of BNSS,2023): Inherent powers of High Court to quash proceedings
Facts of the Case
The marriage between the complainant-wife and the appellant-husband took place in 2005. The wife lodged FIR under Sections 498A and 411 IPC against her husband and in-laws three days after being served with summons in a divorce case initiated by the husband.
The FIR alleged:
- Mental harassment and taunts by the in-laws.
- Allegation (without specific details) that the wife had to hand over her salary to her father-in-law.
- The husband had an extramarital affair and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty.
The husband and his parents sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 CrPC before the Gujarat High Court. The High Court dismissed the plea, observing that presence of allegations was sufficient for trial. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether the FIR against the parents-in-law under Section 498A IPC was mala fide and an abuse of process, being filed after many years of marriage and just after the husband initiated divorce proceedings?
- Whether the High Court erred in not exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings against the in-laws?
Contentions of the Petitioners
The FIR was a counterblast to the divorce petition and was filed with mala fide intention. The parents-in-law were living separately and not involved in any act of cruelty. Allegations were general and vague, with no specific instances of harassment or dowry demand. There was an inordinate delay of 14 years in lodging the FIR.
Contentions of the Respondent
A chargesheet had been filed, and the truthfulness of allegations was to be tested during trial. The wife was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and deprived of her salary. The parents-in-law’s conduct amounted to harassment, particularly after they began living with the couple.
Court’s Analysis
The Court observed that allegations emerged only after the service of divorce summons, indicating a possibility of mala fide intent. The FIR lacked specificity regarding acts of cruelty or dowry demand. The general nature of taunts by the in-laws could not form the basis for prosecuting them under Section 498A IPC. The Court held that "a few taunts here and there is part of everyday life which for happiness of the family are usually ignored." The complaint was more of an afterthought than a genuine grievance, especially against the in-laws. The High Court adopted an overly pedantic approach and failed to exercise its discretion under Section 482 CrPC appropriately.
Conclusion
The criminal proceedings against the in-laws were quashed. Proceedings were permitted to continue only against the husband, as specific allegations of physical and mental cruelty existed against him.
The Supreme Court reiterated that courts must be cautious in criminalizing family disputes, especially when relatives are involved without specific allegations.
