Section 498A IPC| Courts Should Consider Whether There's “Over Implication” To Pressurise Husband’s Family To Yield To Wife’s Demands: SC
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR under Section 498A of the IPC against a brother-in-law while observing that a Court should consider whether the implication is an “over implication” to pressurise the family of the husband to yield to the wife’s demands.
The Court observed that the allegations in the FIR against the brother-in-law were nothing but an exaggerated version invariably suggesting “over implication.” The Court also quashed an FIR against the wife of the brother-in-law, who too was implicated under Sections 406 and 498A of the IPC. The Bench dismissed the complainant’s appeal challenging the quashing of proceedings against the brother-in-law by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed, “The decisions referred above on the subject of exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., would undoubtedly cast a duty on the Courts to consider the contentions that there is lack of specific allegations against the accused concerned to constitute the offence(s) alleged against a relative or that the implication was nothing but an over implication to pressurise the family of the husband to yield to the demands. The Courts cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions.”
AOR Ajay Choudhary represented the Appellant, while AOR Karan Sharma appeared for the Respondents.
The complainant had filed an FIR following a matrimonial discord between his daughter and her husband. A divorce petition was filed by the husband who was in Canada. Following the divorce proceedings, the complainant alleged various offences against his daughter’s husband, his parents and extended family members, including the brother-in-law (cousin of the husband) and his wife who were living separately and were alleged to have been involved in demanding dowry and deceiving the complainant’s daughter.
The brother-in-law and his wife approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the FIR. The High Court quashed the FIR and proceedings against the brother-in-law but refused to do so for his wife.
The Supreme Court noted that the allegations against them were “general and ominous in nature.” The Bench also noted, “In short, on a careful consideration of FIR and the final report and materials we have no hesitation to hold that there is nothing on record to suggest, even prima facie that they would constitute the alleged offences against the accused.”
The Court referred to its decision in Preeti Gupta. v. State of Jharkhand (2010), wherein it was observed that it’s common knowledge that in matrimonial disputes exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over-implication is also reflected in a large number of cases.
Based on the same, the Bench stated, “We have no hesitation to hold that the said observation of this Court is in fact, sounding of a caution, against non-discharge of the duty to see whether implication of a person who is not a close relative of the family of the husband is over implication.”
“A scanning of the materials on record would reveal that the complainant was fully aware of the fact that accused Nos.5 and 6 were living in Mohali in Punjab whereas his daughter was living in Jalandhar. Even then he did not state when the appellant visited the place where his daughter was living,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held that “the subject FIR and all further proceedings therefrom against accused No.5 are liable to be quashed and rightly they were quashed by the High Court. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order to that effect qua accused.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal by the complainant.
Cause Title: Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 896)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Ajay Choudhary and Vineet Bhagat; Advocates Manju Bhagat, Archna Midha, and Aksveer Singh Saggu
Respondents: AOR Karan Sharma; Advocates Rishabh Sharma and Harsh Jaidka
