In a Recent judgment, the Bombay High Court has ruled that allegations of ill-treatment made by a man against his own family members do not fall within the ambit of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman. The case in question is Darshan Kumar Vilayatiram Khanna vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition No. 2982 of 2015). The case was presided over by a division bench comprising Justice A S Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale.
Parties Involved
The petitioners in the case were Narresh Darshan Kumar Khanna, Raajesh Darshan Kumar Khanna, Sonam Narresh Khanna, and Poonam Darshan Kumar Khanna, all residents of Mumbai. The respondents included the State of Maharashtra, the Senior Inspector of Police at R.C.F. Police Station, and Anshu Virendra Khanna, the complainant.
Important Legal Issues
The primary legal issue was whether the allegations made by the complainant, Anshu Virendra Khanna, against her in-laws could be prosecuted under Section 498A of the IPC. The complainant alleged various forms of cruelty, including physical abuse, restriction from using household facilities, and demands for property.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The court meticulously examined the allegations and the context in which the FIR was filed. It noted that the allegations were vague and general, lacking specific details that would constitute an offence under Section 498A. The court observed:
“A plain but careful reading of the FIR 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 FIR, 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 her husband 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 court further highlighted the history of civil litigation between the complainant and her husband on one side and the in-laws on the other, suggesting that the FIR was a strategic move to settle property disputes.
“This lays bare the intention of the complainant in making the complaint. It demonstrates his personal interest in settling scores with his family members in respect of the family property. All the litigations involve property disputes. The FIR clearly discloses a proxy litigation engaged by the husband through his wife, the complainant against the Petitioners to settle his own property dispute,” the Bench remarked.
Also Read
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court quashed the FIR and the subsequent police report, terming it a misuse of Section 498A of the IPC.
– Case Title: Darshan Kumar Vilayatiram Khanna vs. State of Maharashtra
– Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 2982 of 2015
– Petitioners: Represented by Advocate Ashish Mishra
– State: Represented by Assistant Public Prosecutor Anand S. Shalgaonkar
– Complainant: Initially represented by Advocate Rachita Dhruv, though no representation was made during the final hearing
