“It becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws by facilitating rapid state intervention,” the judgment said.
A bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari said this while quashing an FIR against the in-laws of a woman who had accused them and her husband of cruelty and harassment for dowry.
Deciding their appeal against the November 13, 2019 order of Patna High Court, which had dismissed their plea against the FIR dated April 1, 2019, the bench said that “the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution”.
The judgment said that “upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR… it is revealed that general allegations are levelled” against the appellants. The complainant had alleged that the accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy.
The court also said that the complaint “fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws”.
“Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law,” it said.
“It becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws by facilitating rapid state intervention,” the judgment said. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever.”
“This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.”
Referring to some earlier cases, the bench said, “Decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused.”
“It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.”
Setting aside the High Court order and quashing the FIR, the judgment said that it “has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.”
READ MORE :
Commentaires