Gujarat HC Stays Trial Court Proceedings Against Mother-In-Law's Sister For 'Suggesting Home Remedies' To Ensure That Complainant Has A Son

The Gujarat High Court on Monday (September 23) stayed trial court proceedings in a case lodged against the sister of the mother-in-law, accused of telephonically suggesting home remedies to allegedly ensure that the complainant daughter-in-law delivers a baby boy which the latter claimed ultimately led to her miscarriage.

The court passed the order granting interim relief, while hearing a plea moved by the mother-in-law and her sister seeking quashing of the FIR registered under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty by the husband or his family towards wife), 313 (causing a miscarriage without the woman's consent) and 114(Abettor present when offence is committed).

A single judge bench of Justice Nirzar S Desai while dictating the order noted that the counsel appearing for the complainant daughter-in-law and the State respectively had "vehemently opposed" the petition, however they "could not point out anything beyond the fact that the only allegation against the petitioner no. 2 (mother-in-law's sister) is suggesting some home remedies to the mother-in-law (petitioner no. 1) of complainant to ensure a baby born is delivered but ultimately resulted into a miscarriage".

"Considering aforesaid submissions, issue rule. In the meantime there shall be interim relief in terms of para 9(CC) qua petitioner no. 2 (mother-in-law's sister) only," the court said in its order. As per this relief, the petitioners have sought that till the final disposal of the main plea, "further proceedings" pending adjudication before the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad be stayed with respect to the petitioners.

At the outset, the senior counsel appearing for petitioner no. 1 mother-in-law, "upon instructions" did not press the plea for quashing of FIR, adding that they would move an "application for discharge"

At this stage the court said, "Permission as prayed for is granted. It is clarified that this court has not gone into the merits of the matter and as and when petitioner no. 1 prefers an application for discharge before the competent court the same maybe considered on its own merit without being influenced by the present withdrawal".

With respect to petitioner no. 2 sister of the mother-in-law, the senior counsel said that she happens to be sister of the petitioner no1, and she is residing at a far away place. He said that the only allegation against her is that "telephonically she kept suggesting the mother in law various ways and home remedies to ensure that the complainant delivers a baby boy which ultimately as alleged in FIR resulted in miscarriage of the complainant".

He said that a mere telephonic conversation between two sisters talking about domestic issues cannot be termed as commission of an offence. He argued that the mother in law's sister is residing at a faraway place and among the elderly ladies, the suggestion of home remedies is very common; ultimately it was only a suggestion and not an insistence if FIR is taken on its face value.

During the hearing the high court orally said to the counsel for the complainant, "As far as maasi saasu (sister of mother-in-law) is concerned all the allegation against her is that telephonically she instructed the mother-in-law. Now ultimately, one would not be privy to the conversations between the two persons on the phone. Secondly, suppose if on someone's advice the actual act was done by the saasu. For the time being we may keep mother in law aside. But if a person is residing at a far away place only on the basis of some telephonic conversation between her and mother in law of the complainant, she is roped in as an accused how far that would be justifiable?...I have read the FIR thrice. Even if it is believed that she (Aunt) suggested something (home remedies), she did not directly suggest anything to the complainant. She suggested every time over a phone...Everything was done by the mother-in-law not by the sister of the mother-in-law".

The complainant's counsel said at this stage that the investigating agency has also invoked Section 114 IPC.

To this the high court further orally said, "114 right but see, this is for quashing. See, if such kind of FIR are permitted to go on and the proceedings and someone is not protected, tomorrow someone will say that a person sitting at US or some foreign country has instructed on phone and therefore, this offence has taken place. He will be the soft target because then in that case that person would not be in a position to come to India. Of course that is not in this case, but is it not too far fetched? I understand if someone is residing together and some allegations are made then one should take it seriously. Even otherwise these allegations are of serious nature. But what about the genuineness of the allegations?...Every threat was administered by mother-in-law, right. She (complainant) has never has never talked to this petitioner no.2".

The counsel further submitted that the intention from the beginning for suggesting the home remedies was that the complainant has to give birth to a male child. "Such kind of suggestions which ultimately resulted in miscarriage and risk to life of the wife in my submission are dangerous," he said.

The court however orally said, “It is a weak piece of evidence, it is heresay at the most...Are the in-laws are of unsound mind? They believed in it, it's their fault not the aunt's fault. Whatever the maasi was doing was in good faith. She may accept or not is her call..."

The court further orally said, “Prima facie you have alleged against your in laws that is prima facie believed by the Court; but roping in some distant relatives who are acting in good faith…sorry.”

Meanwhile the complainant's counsel said that if the sister of mother in law was acting in good faith then there can be no case against her, but in this case she had acted just to "satisfy her superstition", adding that there were specific allegations against her.

The court however orally said that specific allegations must be supported by some piece of evidence. The court thereafter orally said, "I understand if she is referring to some family gathering and during that in front of some five person she had suggested something. All throughout not one word except telephonic talk".

Case Title: R & ANR. V/S STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.