'Abuse Of Criminal Process, Vague Allegations' : Supreme Court Quashes Wife's S.498A Case Against In-Laws
Observing that a criminal case cannot be allowed to proceed based on vague and obscure complaints, the Supreme Court quashed a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code case against the in-laws of a complaint-wife.
It was a case where the wife had initiated the proceedings against the appellants under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellants. The complaint was against the step mother- in-law (appellant no. 1), step brother-in-law (appellant no. 2), father-in-law and another individual.
She had levelled various allegations against the appellants such as cruelty or harassment, threatening to deprive her of the property, etc. However, the allegations in the FIR were general and omnibus in nature and lacked material particulars bereft of any details, rendering the complaint vague and obscure.
The High Court had refused to quash the criminal case against the appellants citing held that a prima facie case of cruelty is made out under Section 498A.
Setting aside the High Court's order, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal observed that the criminal proceedings were instituted with a mala fide intention, only to harass the appellants.
Discussing various allegations levelled by the complainants against the appellants, the judgment authored by Justice Narasimha noted that there was no truthfulness in the allegations as it is impossible to conceive of any offence based on such vague and unclear allegations.
In essence, the court said that it would be unjustified to register a criminal case based on omnibus statements or vague allegations as it would cause injustice to the party.
Reference was made to Mohammad Wajid and Another v. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 which highlighted the duty of the High Court to examine the allegations with care and caution when the allegations are manifestly vexatious and malicious.
Noting that the husband has not been made an accused, the Court observed :
"The FIR in this case is rather unique, in as much as the complainant has chosen not to involve her husband in the criminal proceedings, particularly when all the allegations relate to demand of dowry. It appears that the complainant and her husband have distributed amongst themselves, the institution of civil and criminal proceedings against the appellants. While the husband institutes the civil suit, his wife, the complainant has chosen to initiate criminal proceedings. Interestingly, there is no reference of one proceeding in the other."
The Court was of the view that the Complaint/FIR is intended only to further their interest of the civil dispute.
Reference was also made to Jaswant Singh vs State of Punjab (2021) which held that the Court has a duty to scrutinise the matter when FIR has predominating and overwhelming civil flavour. The decision in Usha Chakraborty v. State of W.B (2023) was also cited where the Court quashed criminal proceedings due to general, vague, and omnibus allegations. The decision in Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar which held that it would be an injustice to subject the in-laws to criminal proceedings based on general and vague allegations was also referred to.
Taking note of an identical matter where the trial court had dismissed the domestic violence complaint of the complainant, the court observed as follows:
“We are not referring to all the findings of the Court dismissing the domestic violence complaint. It is sufficient to note that identical allegations were examined in detail, subjected to strict scrutiny, and rejected as being false and untenable. This case is yet another instance of abuse of criminal process and it would not be fair and just to subject the appellants to the entire criminal law process.”
Since no case was made out in the complaint therefore the court deemed it appropriate to quash the pending criminal case against the appellants. In this regard, the court referred to the recent case of Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, where it warned against the mechanical registration of domestic violence cases against the in-laws and husband.
Appearance:
Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsels for the appellants; Dr. Shardul S. Shroff, the Advocate-on-Record and Shally Bhasin for Appellant Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Shrirang B Varma, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra
Mr. Sanjeev Despande, learned senior counsel for respondent no. 2/complainant
Case Title: KAILASHBEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4003/2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 753