RELATIVES CANNOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 498-A OF IPC- A study

 Relatives cannot be
charged under section
498-A OF IPC.
pic art -iamashar.

RELATIVES CANNOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 498-A OF Indian Penal Code, 1860.

False and frivolous legal cases against relatives of the husband can cause huge amounts of stress, anxiety, and financial burden on those individuals. In some cases, the lawsuits may be motivated by greed, revenge, or some other malicious intent, and can ultimately ruin the relationships and life.

However, it is important to note that anyone can file a false case against someone else. The legal system allows for grievances to be, it may also strain the relationship and welfare of the children.

It is important to note that frivolous cases are not only illegal but also unethical. They waste the time and resources of the court and can harm the reputation of the person or party being sued.

If there are genuine legal issues that need to be addressed, it is always advisable to approach the situation in a sensible, civil, and lawful manner. Rather than using legal threats as a way to exert power or control over individuals, it's better to seek legal advice and pursue legitimate legal channels.

Moreover, it's important to consider the impact of such legal actions on family relationships. If the motive is to harm or punish the husband's relatives, one may end up hurting the herself himself as well.

Therefore, it is best to resolve disputes and grievances through discussion, understanding, and mutual respect.

If someone is entrapped the following judgements may be of help:

Relative cannot be charged
under section 498-A IPC.
iamashar.

• Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Ors Vs. State of Bihar and Ors (2022 SCC OnLine SC 162). 

"In the paragraph 18 of the above judgement it has been quoted as '"The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. 

 It is further manifest from the said judgments  that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged."

• Rajesh Sharma and Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2018) 10 SCC 472 

"Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression ‘cruelty’ in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.” 

• Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273 

"There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grandfathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 

 • Preeti Gupta and Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667. 

"It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 

• K. Subba Rao Vs The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452.

"The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.”

• Vaibhavi Vs State of M.P 2017 SCC OnLine MP 999 14. 

"It may be seen from the aforesaid judgments that the Supreme Court has expressed its concern with regard to false implication of husband in the cases under Section 498-A of the IPC by deserting wife. It has also been held that the tendency of false implication of relatives of husband, who lived separately and in different cities is also growing. It has also been held that unless there are specific and credible allegations with necessary particulars against the relatives of the husband, they should not be made to suffer agony of the criminal trial.

It may also be seen that so far as the petitioners are concerned, none of them lived together with the husband and in-laws of victim in her matrimonial home. Moreover, there are no specific and credible allegations with necessary particulars against them and only omnibus allegation shorn of even basic particulars, have been levelled. In these circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, they should not be made to undergo rigmarole of a criminal trial. As such, exercise of extra-ordinary powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is called for."

• Manish Raghuvanshi & Ors Vs State of MP & Ors 2019 SCC OnLine MP 516.

• Sudhakar Bahad & Ors Vs State of Rajasthan 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 638. 

"The above mentioned decisions of Apex Court clearly discloses that misuse of Section 498A IPC and increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long term ramifications of trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is also observed that false implication by way of general omnibus allegation made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of process of law.

It is admitted position in this matter that the marriage was solemnized between the respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 on 19.02.2011 and it is also admitted position that petitioner No. 1 had filed the divorce petition on 29.04.2014. Respondent No. 2 in her reply of the divorce petition as well as other proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act, she had not levelled the allegation regarding demand of dowry. Respondent No. 2 lodged the present FIR after an inordinate delay of seven years and the trial of divorce petition is at the fag end. It clearly shows that the present FIR is not bona fide. Respondent No. 2 has lodged the present FIR to harass and humiliate the petitioners. So, allowing the proceedings in the present FIR would be abuse of processing of law. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to allow the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioners.

• Saurabh Tripathi and Ors Vs State of M.P. and Anr. 2016 SCC OnLine MP 12153.

In the light of aforesaid principle of law, I have carefully considered the allegations made in the FIR and statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in relation to demand of money and alleged harassment to respondent No. 2/complainant. There is no specific allegation that when demand was made, when she was beaten, by whom, no specific year, month, date or time was mentioned. Before registration of the FIR, husband of the complainant has already expressed his apprehension about the conduct of his wife in the complaint made to the Station House Officer Police Station Hazira, Gwalior as well as Superintendent of Police, Gwalior. Further the re-conciliation proceedings were under way at Family Settlement Center when the FIR was registered on the complaint filed on 23/09/2015 by respondent No. 2/complaint (sic : complainant). These aspects also indicate that the complainant has deliberately implicated the present petitioners for demand of dowry or for harassment.

The investigating Officer while investigating the case under Section 498-A of IPC should also take note of the mandate given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of those relatives who are living at different city or separately and desists from arraying them as accused on the basis of omnibus allegations. Similarly, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to objectively consider the factum of reconciliation proceedings if any going on between the parties as well as the apprehensions of husband and/or his relatives reflected through some complaints made to police authorities. These aspects may not be conclusive in nature, but certainly indicate the complexion of the controversy". 

There are many other cases which are not mentioned here.

Dear Readers!

A lot of effort has been put into the blog for all to know and learn. However, we are humans and humans err.  Please feel free to correct me in the comment. 

 

If you like or dislike the post, kindly comment below the post and share your response. You are also requested to comment with your kind suggestions.

 

Thanks for Reading. J

Team Lex Polis.