The High Court of Delhi, in a judgment delivered by Justice Amit Mahajan, has quashed criminal proceedings against the distant relatives of a man, holding that “mere taunts, casual references, vague assertions or general family friction” do not constitute ‘cruelty’ as defined under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court was hearing a petition [W.P.(CRL) 2711/2022] filed by two of the husband’s relatives (his aunt and her daughter), seeking the quashing of FIR No. 536/2022, registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar for offences under Sections 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 406 (Punishment for criminal breach of trust), and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC.
The High Court found that the allegations against the petitioners were “vague” and did not give rise to “grave suspicion” for framing charges. It, therefore, quashed the consequential proceedings arising from the FIR against the two petitioners.
Background of the Case
The FIR was registered on a complaint by the wife (Respondent No. 3), who married her husband on 09.11.2019. She alleged that her husband and his family members—including her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and the two petitioners—had “tortured, and assaulted” her in relation to demands for dowry.
The complainant alleged that her in-laws demanded a car at the ‘sagan’ ceremony and later took ‘sagan’ money for its downpayment. She also alleged that her husband demanded ₹5 lakh from her parents, who subsequently arranged ₹2 lakh.
Specific allegations against the petitioners, who did not reside in the matrimonial home, included:
- Petitioner No. 1 (the husband’s aunt) lived 10 minutes away and, along with her daughter (Petitioner No. 2), interfered in the complainant’s life.
- The in-laws allegedly shared every detail with the petitioners, such as “what food she gave to her child.”
- Petitioner No. 1 allegedly told the complainant “not to throw tantrums else she would get Petitioner No. 2 married with Respondent No. 3’s husband.”
- On 14.08.2021, both petitioners allegedly came to a neighbor’s house where the complainant’s parents were present and “started shouting on my parents that your daughter has no family value.”
- In her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the complainant alleged that her ‘stridhan’ (woman’s property) was in the possession of her husband, in-laws, and the petitioners.
A chargesheet had been filed in the case against all accused, including the petitioners.
Arguments of the Parties
The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the FIR was “vague, frivolous and generic” regarding the allegations against them. It was submitted that “only generic assertions” were made without evidence and that it is “commonplace to over implicate the distant relatives of the husband.” The counsel contended that even if the allegations were presumed correct, they did not constitute an offence under Sections 498A or 406 of the IPC, as the petitioners never lived in the matrimonial home.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel for the complainant opposed the petition. They argued that the matter was at the stage of charge and the complainant had “categorically named the petitioners in the FIR” and her subsequent statement. They submitted that “specific allegations have been made” and the Court should not “stifle the prosecution at this stage.”
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Amit Mahajan, after examining the record, noted that while the Court is cautious to interfere after a chargesheet is filed, it is empowered to quash proceedings to “prevent abuse of law,” citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited.
The Court observed a “growing tendency to rope in even distant relatives” in such cases. The judgment stated, “Such omnibus, sweeping and mechanical implication, however, bereft of concrete evidence, dilutes the very intent and sanctity with which the provision [Section 498A] was incorporated.”
Analyzing the definition of ‘cruelty’ under Section 498A, the Court found the allegations against the petitioners did not meet the legal standard. The Court held, “The petitioners, as is evident from the record, did not reside with Respondent No. 3 in her matrimonial home. The allegations against the petitioners, as reproduced supra, even when taken at the highest, pertain to certain comments made by the petitioners or interference in the married life of Respondent No. 3.”
The judgment made a clear distinction between family friction and criminal cruelty: “However, mere taunts, casual references, vague assertions or general family friction that occur in the ordinary wear and tear of marital life is not sufficient to fall within the definition of ‘cruelty’ as embodied under Section 498A of the IPC.”
Regarding the allegation under Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust), the Court found it to be “a vague allegation.” The judgment noted, “While such general allegations may suffice for the purpose of investigation being commenced, the same is not sufficient for the continuance of consequent proceedings qua the petitioners.” The Court found “nothing substantial” in the investigation or chargesheet to support this charge against them.
The Decision
Concluding that “no grave suspicion arises against the petitioners for the purpose of framing of charges,” the High Court quashed the proceedings against the two petitioners.
“On such a conspectus of facts and upon a consideration of the material on record,” the Court stated, “…this Court deems it apposite to quash the consequential proceedings arising out of the present FIR against the petitioners.”
The Court, however, clarified that “if at some stage, the Trial Court finds evidence to proceed against the petitioners, it is open to the learned Trial Court to take appropriate steps in accordance with CrPC.” The petition was disposed of accordingly.
