In a landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a woman and her family members in a case that emerged from a matrimonial dispute. The decision was rendered by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, who found that the charges were a result of a counter-blast and lacked the necessary legal ingredients to constitute a criminal offence.
Case Background
The case involved a matrimonial dispute between the applicant (the daughter-in-law) and her husband’s family. The applicant had previously filed two FIRs against her husband and in-laws, alleging cruelty and dowry demands. In retaliation, the mother-in-law lodged an FIR nearly 11 months after an alleged incident, accusing the applicant and her family of house trespass and criminal intimidation.
Legal Issues
The court addressed two primary legal issues:
1. Counter-blast and Delay: Whether the criminal proceedings were initiated as a counter-blast with malicious intent.
2. Legal Ingredients: Whether the allegations met the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Court’s Decision
Justice Shamshery quashed the criminal proceedings, making several critical observations:
1. Counter-blast and Delay: The court noted the significant delay of 11 months in filing the FIR by the complainant (mother-in-law) without any explanation. This delay, combined with the fact that the applicant had already filed FIRs regarding the same incident, suggested that the proceedings were initiated with a motive for vengeance.
2. Lack of Essential Ingredients: The court found that the allegations did not meet the essential ingredients required under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. Specifically, the court observed:
– The nature of the abusive language was not specified.
– The presence of the applicant at the house was natural, and there was no evidence of intent to cause alarm.
– The statements did not indicate that the alleged abusive language was sufficient to provoke a breach of peace.
Quoting the judgment, Justice Shamshery stated:
“Nature of abusive language is not specific. Presence of Applicant-1 at the house was natural and there is no evidence that there was intent. As such ingredients of Section 503 IPC as punishable under Section 506 IPC are not made out.”
The court further emphasized the principles for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, referencing the Supreme Court’s judgment in A.M. Mohan vs. State Represented by SHO and another (2024).
Also Read
Case Details
– Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 15986 of 2024
– Applicants: The daughter-in-law and her family members
– Opposite Party: State of U.P. and others
– Counsel for Applicants: Abhay Kumar, Kumar Ankit Srivastava
– Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Qazi Vakil Ahmad
