The Supreme Court has urged judicial caution in cases filed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), emphasizing that distant relatives of a husband should not be unnecessarily implicated in domestic cruelty allegations brought forward by the wife.

This observation was made by a bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal while quashing criminal proceedings against the cousin brother of the husband and the cousin’s wife, who were named as co-accused in an FIR filed by the wife’s father. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to quash the case against them. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for failing to assess whether the inclusion of distant relatives was an instance of “over implication” or an “exaggerated version.”

Citing the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667, the bench highlighted that criminal trials can cause immense suffering to all involved, and even an acquittal might not erase the reputational damage. Referring to this judgment, the Court noted that it serves as “a caution, against non-discharge of the duty to see whether implication of a person who is not a close relative of the family of the husband is over implication or whether allegation against any such person is an exaggerated version, in matrimonial disputes of this nature.”

The judgment also addressed the interpretation of the term “relative,” which is not explicitly defined in the statute. The Court explained that “relative” generally refers to individuals connected by blood, marriage, or adoption, such as parents, siblings, children, or spouses. When allegations are directed at individuals outside these categories, the judiciary has a responsibility to carefully assess whether such claims are exaggerated or motivated by ulterior motives.

“In such circumstances, normally against a person who is not falling under any of the aforesaid categories when allegations are raised, in the light of the observations made in Preeti Gupta's case (supra), the Court concerned owes an irrecusable duty to see whether such implication is over implication and/or whether the allegations against such a person is an exaggerated version," the judgment, authored by Justice Ravikumar, stated.

The Court also referred the judgment in Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 741, which held that casually naming extended family members in matrimonial disputes without specific allegations of their active involvement should not warrant criminal proceedings. It emphasized that courts must recognize the tendency to implicate entire households in domestic disputes, especially when such cases arise soon after the marriage.

In this case, the petitioners resided in Mohali, far from the complainant’s daughter in Jalandhar. Highlighting this, the Court remarked: 

“In matters like the one at hand when relatives not residing in the same house where the alleged victim resides, the courts shall not stop consideration by merely looking into the question where the accused is a person falling within the ambit of the expression 'relative' for the purpose of Section 498-A, IPC, but should also consider whether it is a case of over implication or exaggerated version solely to implicate such person(s) to pressurize the main accused.”

The Court found that the allegations against the petitioners were “general and omnibus” in nature, with no prima facie evidence of criminal conduct. Observing that subjecting the petitioners to trial based on such accusations would amount to an abuse of judicial process, the Court stated, “It is evident that making them face the trial based on the allegations or accusation as referred above would be nothing but an abuse of process of court.”

The FIR was filed shortly after the husband initiated divorce proceedings against the wife. While the complaint alleged dowry harassment and cruelty by the husband and his parents, it also implicated the cousin brother and his wife. The Supreme Court clarified that the mere filing of a final report does not preclude judicial interference, overturning the High Court’s refusal to quash the proceedings.

Case Title : Payal Sharma v State of Punjab

Date of decision : November-26-2024

Coram: Justice CT Ravikumar, Justice Rajesh Bindal