The High Court of Gujarat, in a significant ruling on a matrimonial dispute, has quashed criminal proceedings against the in-laws of a complainant, holding that “causal reference” and “bald allegations” without specific incidents are insufficient to proceed with a trial for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The court deemed the continuation of such a case an “abuse of process of law.”
The judgment was delivered by Justice J. C. Doshi. The court allowed the application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, setting aside the FIR registered against the petitioners.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an FIR (I-C.R.No.284 of 2016) registered with Vatva Police Station against the petitioners—the mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law of the complainant. The charges were filed under Sections 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 294(1) (obscene acts), 506(1) (criminal intimidation), and 114 (abettor present when offence is committed) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising from it.
Arguments of the Parties
The advocate for the petitioners argued that the complainant had made “general allegations” against the family members in a “typical fashion to enrope petitioner in the offence.” It was submitted that even if the contents of the FIR were accepted as true, they failed to establish the ingredients of an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. The petitioners contended that the FIR was a misuse of the legal process intended to pressurize them.
Conversely, the advocate for the complainant (Respondent No. 2) submitted that the petitioners were responsible for “inciting husband of the complainant,” which was the “root cause for offence alleged against the husband.” The respondent argued that a trial was necessary to “test veracity of the allegations” and urged the court to dismiss the petition. The Learned APP for the State of Gujarat adopted the arguments of the complainant.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice J. C. Doshi, after examining the submissions and the contents of the FIR, observed that the allegations were of a general and vague nature. The court first defined the scope of “cruelty” under Section 498A, stating it means “conduct likely to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health physically or mentally to the complainant or harassment with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security.”
Applying this definition to the facts, the court found that the role attributed to the petitioners was “limited of inciting husband of the complainant.” The judgment critically noted, “specific incidents are missing in the matter. Causal reference of the petitioners in the FIR is insufficient to take cognizance.”
The court heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Geeta Mehrotra Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh
, where the Apex Court had observed that “the bald allegations made against the sister in law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband’s relatives as possible.”
Quoting another Supreme Court case, G.V. Rao V/s. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 693, Justice Doshi remarked on the recent “outburst of matrimonial dispute” where elders who could have counselled the couple are instead “rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case.”
The court concluded that the High Court had a “legal duty… to examine whether there were prima facie material against the appellants so that they could be directed to undergo the trial.”
Final Decision
Concluding its analysis, the court held that the case against the petitioners was based on nothing more than “bald allegations” with no “specific incident or overtact” alleged against them.
“FIR is found to be abuse of process of law against the petitioners and allowing the petitioner to face trial would be absurd process,” the court stated in its order.
Consequently, the application was allowed, and the FIR being I-C.R.No.284 of 2016 registered with Vatva Police Station, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed and set aside in relation to the petitioners.
