High Court of Delhi, in a significant ruling on a matrimonial dispute, has quashed criminal proceedings against the relatives of a husband, terming the complaint against them a “malicious afterthought” and an abuse of the legal process. Justice Arun Monga held that the proceedings were initiated not to seek justice but to “arm-twist” the petitioners into submission and exert extraneous pressure in a marital conflict.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife. The couple married on February 7, 2010, but differences soon arose. The husband filed a criminal application against his wife in Amroha, U.P., on November 22, 2012. Concurrently, the wife’s divorce petition was dismissed by the Tis Hazari Court on December 18, 2012.
On the same day her divorce petition was dismissed, the wife lodged a police complaint in Delhi concerning alleged incidents on December 17 and 18, 2012. This initial complaint named her husband and his immediate family, but did not mention the petitioners—the husband’s cousin and uncles.
Five months later, on May 21, 2013, the wife filed another police complaint, this time naming the petitioners. When no FIR was registered, she filed a private criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on July 22, 2013.
Based on this private complaint, the Metropolitan Magistrate, on June 4, 2019, summoned the petitioners to face trial for offences under Sections 452 (House-trespass), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), and 341 (Wrongful restraint) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A criminal revision petition challenging this summoning order was dismissed by the Sessions Court on July 28, 2022, leading the petitioners to approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Submissions: The counsel for the petitioners argued that they were distant relatives who resided separately in B_ijnor_ and Moradabad and had no involvement in the couple’s marital life. It was contended that their names were conspicuously absent from the first police complaint dated December 18, 2012, and their subsequent inclusion five months later was based on “vague, omnibus” allegations. Citing Supreme Court judgments in cases like State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr., they argued that prosecuting relatives on the basis of such casual and general allegations amounted to a gross misuse of the law, intended solely to harass the husband’s family.
Respondent’s Submissions: The respondent-wife’s counsel contested the maintainability of the petition, arguing that it was a disguised “second revision,” which is statutorily barred under Section 397(3) of the CrPC. It was submitted that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC could not be used to circumvent this express bar. The counsel asserted that the petitioners were specifically named in relation to a later incident and that their non-inclusion in the first complaint was not material.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Arun Monga, after examining the record, concluded that the proceedings against the petitioners were a clear abuse of the court’s process. The court noted that the wife was metaphorically “twisting arms” by “using the criminal process as her personal pressure lever.”
Belated Inclusion and Lack of Evidence: The judgment heavily underscored the fact that the petitioners were not named in the initial police complaint of December 18, 2012, which detailed the alleged assault on the same day. The court observed, “On this ground alone, the belated attempt to drag the petitioners into the proceedings through a subsequent complaint under Section 200 CrPC qua the same incident of 18.12.2012 reeks of pure afterthought on the part of the respondent.”
The court further scrutinized the evidence presented to the Magistrate, noting its weakness. The sole basis for the summoning order was the “complainant’s self-serving proclamation that she suffered a ‘minor injury'” and the testimony of her mother, father, and sister. The court found it significant that these witnesses were not present during the alleged incident, stating, “It is obvious that their evidence, therefore, is nothing but hearsay, dressed up as testimony.”
Mala Fide Intent: The Court identified a clear “ulterior motive of exerting extraneous pressure.” It pointed out that the wife’s actions followed the dismissal of her divorce petition and the criminal proceedings initiated against her by her husband. The judgment stated, “This belated addition/introduction of the petitioners, without a shred of independent evidence, is nothing but an afterthought to rope in more relatives.”
Inherent Powers Under Section 482 CrPC: Addressing the respondent’s argument regarding the bar on a second revision, the court clarified the legal position. Justice Monga held that while Section 397(3) CrPC imposes a bar, “it is equally trite that this bar does not eclipse the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC.” The court asserted its duty to intervene where a “palpable illegality is writ large” to prevent the abuse of its process. The summoning of the petitioners, despite their not being named in the initial report, was deemed one such “patent illegality.”
Concluding his analysis, Justice Monga remarked, “It is thus plain that the proceedings against the petitioners are malicious, vexatious and intended not to seek justice but to arm-twist them into submission.” Recalling a courtroom maxim, the judge noted that the respondent’s case failed on facts and law, stating, “if you have the facts, hammer the facts; if you have the law, hammer the law; if you have neither, hammer the desk’. Unfortunately for the respondent, in this case, facts do not support her, law does not sustain her case and desk-thumping cannot rescue her.”
Final Decision
Finding no substance to justify the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, the High Court allowed the petitions. The summoning order dated June 4, 2019, and all consequential proceedings against the four petitioners—the husband’s cousin and uncles—were quashed. The court directed that the trial shall proceed against the other accused as per the law.
