Allegations Of Ill-Treatment By Man Against His Own Family Members Do Not Fall Within Scope Of S. 498A IPC: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court held that the allegations of ill-treatment by a man against his own family members do not fall within the scope of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court held thus in a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of FIR registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, and 506 read with 34 of IPC.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale observed, “A plain but careful reading of the F.I.R. and the charge sheet indicates that the allegations against the Petitioners are quite general and vague. Undoubtedly, she has given a list of incidents of cruelty in the F.I.R., however the instances are also of a nature that do not fulfill the ingredients of Section 498(A) of the IPC. Moreover, the allegations are made only against the husband’s relatives. In fact, some of the ill-treatment as alleged is aimed against Virendra and not even the complainant herself. Allegations of ill-treatment by a man against his own family members do not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 498(A) of the IPC.”
The Bench regarded it as a ‘peculiar case’.
Advocate Ashish Mishra appeared on behalf of the petitioners while APP Anand S. Shalgaonkar appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The petitioners were the in-laws of the respondent woman/wife (complainant) and were accused of committing an offence under Section 498A of IPC without a single allegation against her husband. Surprisingly, these allegations against the petitioners were made by the wife at the behest of her own husband. The allegations in the FIR detailed allegations of incidents of cruelty meted out to the complainant by the petitioners. It was her case that the petitioners started digging up quarrels on petty issues with her husband to drive him and the complainant out of the house.
The complainant’s deceased father-in-law allegedly demanded that she and her husband should ask her to provide a flat for their residence. She also alleged that she and her husband were abused on trivial matters. The list of ill-treatment involved refusing to allow her to use kitchen and other domestic appliances; restraining her from using the terrace and garden; practicing black magic on her; making offensive remarks on her relatives; restraining domestic help from doing the complainant’s work, amongst other things. The petitioners, therefore, approached the High Court seeking quashing of FIR against them.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case remarked, “Although Section 498-A envisages cruelty inflicted upon a woman by a relative of the husband, it is rare to see such allegations aimed at the relatives de hors any accusation against the husband. But no sooner than a plain reading of the F.I.R. begins to unravel this mystery.”
The Court said that the history of civil litigation between the complainant and her husband on one side and the petitioners on the other, lays bare the intention of the complainant in making the complaint which demonstrates his personal interest in settling scores with his family members in respect of the family property.
“All the litigations involve property disputes. The F.I.R. clearly discloses a proxy litigation engaged by Virendra through his wife, the complainant against the Petitioners to settle his own property dispute. Most pertinent is a challenge mounted by Virendra assailing the gift deed which exposes his ruse and intention completely. The F.I.R. is nothing but a shot fired by Virendra from his wife’s shoulder to espouse his own cause of his interest in his father’s property. It is evident from the attending circumstances in the case that the entire law enforcement machinery has been set in motion by the complainant only at Virendra’s behest. This is so because all the parties are yet residing together in their family home”, it further noted.
The Court held that the FIR was filed with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance on the petitioners which is a complete abuse of the process of law. It added that the police machinery has been used for realizing private interest of the complainant and her husband and the case is a classic example of gross abuse of Section 498(A) of the IPC.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR against the petitioners.
Cause Title- Darrshan Kumar Vilayatiram Khanna & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:28264-DB)
