The Supreme Court quashed an FIR under Section 498A of the IPC against a brother-in-law while observing that a Court should consider whether the implication is an “over implication” to pressurise the family of the husband to yield to the wife’s demands. The Court observed that the allegations in the FIR against the brother-in-law were nothing but an exaggerated version invariably suggesting “over implication.” The Bench dismissed the complainant’s appeal challenging the quashing of proceedings against the brother-in-law by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India quashed an FIR filed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a brother-in-law, emphasizing the need for courts to assess whether allegations constitute an “over implication” aimed at pressurizing the husband’s family.
The apex court observed that the allegations in the FIR were exaggerated and reflective of an “over implication.” The judgment also extended to quashing an FIR filed against the wife of the brother-in-law, who was accused under Sections 406 and 498A of the IPC.
The Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal dismissed the complainant’s appeal challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s earlier decision to quash proceedings against the brother-in-law.
Highlighting the judicial obligation, the Bench stated-
“The decisions referred above on the subject of exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., would undoubtedly cast a duty on the Courts to consider the contentions that there is lack of specific allegations against the accused concerned to constitute the offence(s) alleged against a relative or that the implication was nothing but an over implication to pressurise the family of the husband to yield to the demands. The Courts cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions.”
Background of the Case
The complainant, represented by Advocate-on-Record (AOR) Ajay Choudhary, filed an FIR following a matrimonial discord between his daughter and her husband.
The husband, based in Canada, had filed for divorce. Subsequently, the complainant accused the husband, his parents, and extended family, including the brother-in-law (the husband’s cousin) and his wife, of dowry demands and deceit.
Despite living separately from the couple, the brother-in-law and his wife were implicated.
Seeking relief, the brother-in-law and his wife approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for quashing the FIR. While the High Court quashed the FIR against the brother-in-law, it denied the same relief to his wife.
This decision led to the complainant filing an appeal in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court found that the allegations against the brother-in-law and his wife were “general and ominous in nature.”
The Bench noted-
“In short, on a careful consideration of FIR and the final report and materials we have no hesitation to hold that there is nothing on record to suggest, even prima facie, that they would constitute the alleged offences against the accused.”
The Court referred to its earlier ruling in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010), which highlighted the tendency to exaggerate allegations in matrimonial disputes. The judgment had cautioned against over-implication of individuals not closely related to the husband’s family.
The Bench reiterated-
“We have no hesitation to hold that the said observation of this Court is in fact, sounding of 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.”
The Court further remarked,
“A scanning of the materials on record would reveal that the complainant was fully aware of the fact that accused Nos.5 and 6 were living in Mohali in Punjab whereas his daughter was living in Jalandhar. Even then he did not state when the appellant visited the place where his daughter was living.”
Decision and Rationale
Based on the lack of specific and credible allegations, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the FIR against the brother-in-law.
It held-
“The subject FIR and all further proceedings therefrom against accused No.5 are liable to be quashed and rightly they were quashed by the High Court. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order to that effect qua accused.”
The Supreme Court dismissed the complainant’s appeal, affirming the importance of evaluating the veracity and specificity of allegations in matrimonial disputes. This decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding individuals from frivolous and exaggerated accusations, particularly in cases of matrimonial discord.
Appearance
Appellant: AOR Ajay Choudhary and Vineet Bhagat; Advocates Manju Bhagat, Archna Midha, and Aksveer Singh Saggu
Respondents: AOR Karan Sharma; Advocates Rishabh Sharma and Harsh Jaidka
CASE TITLE:
Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 896)
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on 498A IPC
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
