'Far-Fetched, Vague Allegations' : Supreme Court Quashes Sec 498A IPC Case By Wife Against Mother-in-Law & Brothers-in-Law

The Supreme Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of a wife against her in-laws for the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code after noting that the allegations were "mostly general and omnibus in nature".

The woman had lodged the FIR against her mother-in-law and two brothers-in-law (one of them a judicial officer). The accused persons approached the Supreme Court after the High Court refused to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar and SVN Bhatti noted that many of the allegations were improbable and inconsistent. It noted that the brothers-in-law resided in different cities and the interaction of the complainant with them was limited to only during the festival seasons. The complainant resided in her matrimonial home for only about two years and in 2009, she had voluntarily left it and started residing with her parents.

The most striking fact that the Court noted was that the complaint was filed only in 2013 soon after the husband filed a petition seeking divorce. The wife had also caused an anonymous complaint to be sent against her brother-in-law, who was in judicial service, to the High Court as well as to the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Later, she admitted that she was the author of the complaint.

"Instances of a husband’s family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin", the Court observed before referring to various precedents which held that criminal case against in-laws can be quashed if they are vague and omnibus in nature(Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others,2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141). Reference was also made to the recent decision in Mahmood Ali and others vs. State of U.P. and others 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613, which held that the attendant circumstances must be taken into account for quashing the FIR/complaint if the same is alleged to be filed on account of personal animosity.

The Court noted that the act of the complainant filing an anonymous complaint against her brother-in-law is a circumstance indicating personal animosity. It also noted that the wife had voluntarily left her matrimonial home in 2009 and the complaint was filed only in 2013 soon after the husband filed for divorce.

The Court was surprised to note that the FIR mentions that the crimes occurred between 2007 and 2013, though there are no allegations regarding harassment after 2009. The complaint did not mention any specific instance of harassment by the brothers-in-law. The Court also observed that the mother-in-law's alleged statement taunting the complainant for wearing a maxi would not amount to cruelty.

"..her allegations are mostly general and omnibus in nature, without any specific details as to how and when her brothers-in-law and mother-in-law, who lived in different cities altogether, subjected her to harassment for dowry", the Court observed.

Another allegation in the complainant was that one brother-in-law, on the date of his marriage, demanded that the complainant and her parents should provide him with 2.5 lakh rupees and a car.

"Why he would make such a demand for dowry, even if he was inclined to commit such an illegality, from his sister-in-law at the time of his own marriage is rather incongruous and difficult to comprehend", the Court observed in this regard.

The Court observed that the allegations are "far-fetched" and "improbable".

"Given the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that Bhawna’s allegations against the appellants, such as they are, are wholly insufficient and, prima facie, do not make out a case against them. Further, they are so farfetched and improbable that no prudent person can conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against them", the Court said.

Saying that permitting the criminal process to continue would amount to "clear and patent injustice", the Court quashed the criminal case.