Penal Code, 1860: s.498-A – Purpose of enactment of s.498A and misuse of the said section – Discussed.
Penal Code, 1860: s.498-A – Complaint against in-laws – Complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’ – No specific and distinct allegations made against either of the accused i.e., none of the appellants were attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them – Allegations were, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes – Therefore, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 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. However, 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. 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. 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. In the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. [Paras 12, 18, 19][563-G-H; 567-E-H; 568-A-B]
Rajesh Sharma and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2018)
10 SCC 472; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273 : [2014] 8 SCR 128; Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667 : [2010] 9 SCR 1168; Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of UP & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 741: [2012] 9 SCR 641; K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC
452 – relied on.
Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC1 : [2013] 14 SCR 713; Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar & Anr. v. Union of India, Ministry of Law And Justice & Ors. (2018) 10 SCC 443 : [2018]
12 SCR 19; Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 259 : [1993] 3 SCR 930 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.