[Matrimonial Dispute] Entire Family Cannot Be Implicated Based On Omnibus Allegations: Madras High Court

Criticising the trend of implicating family members in matrimonial cases, the Madras High Court bench of Justice N Satish Kumar observed that in such cases, mere omnibus allegation against the family members could not be the basis for initiating criminal proceedings.

The court was hearing a plea for quashing criminal proceedings against a father and mother who were accused of committing cruelty against their daughter in law and were charged with offences under Section 498(A) and 406 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The daughter in law, defacto complainant and the second respondent herein, submitted that during the time of marriage, 80 sovereigns of gold and other household articles were given as sthreedhana. Her husband, the first accused had forcibly taken these jewels and handed it over to his aunt, for keeping it safely, it was alleged. Thereafter, the petitioners herein compelled her to pledge 40 sovereigns of gold and further demanded cash and jewellery from her, it is alleged. Later, when she got to know that her husband was having an affair with another girl, he started abusing her, the complainant said.

The petitioners contended that the allegations were brought in only due to the strained relationship between the couple and apart from that there were no allegations against them.

After perusal of the materials available on record, the court was also convinced that the only allegations against the petitioners was that they had instigated their son against the de facto complainant. At the same time, further details of instigation or how the instigation fructified into action had not been stated by the defacto complainant.

The court also opined that though under Section 482 CrPC, it cannot assume the role of a trial court. However, if it is satisfied that the prosecution has been maliciously instituted, it could go into the materials and find out whether there are materials, which requires a trial.

Normally when the materials unearthed by the prosecution prima facie discloses commission of the offence, which requires trial, the Court while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, will not venture into the probative value of the statements and will not assume the role of a trial Court by conducting a mini trial. But, at the same time, if the Court finds that prosecution has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive and the accused being in-laws have been unnecessarily harassed and implicated in a matrimonial disputes, there is no bar on the powers of this Court to go into the materials and find out whether there are materials, which requires a trial. 

The court found that the jewellery were not entrusted to the petitioners but to the husband. Merely because he happened to be their son, the entire family could not be clothed with criminal liability. 

On a perusal of the materials and the statement of the defacto complainant, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioners have been unnecessarily implicated in a matrimonial dispute between A1 and the defacto complainant, merely because the petitioners were the parents of A1.

Observing that the entire allegations, even if taken on its face value, would not constitute the offence alleged, the court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

Case Title: Subburaj and another  v. State and another 

Case No: Crl OP No 11836 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 332

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor