AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following relief:-
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal case No.1371 of 2014 being Case Crime No.52/2014 under section 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District JP Nagar pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, JP Nagar, so that justice may be done.”
Factual matrix is that the marriage of the complainant Smt. Saheen was solemnized with the accused Mobin on 16.04.2006. According to the allegations contained in the complaint/FIR, sufficient dowry, according to the financial capacity of the complainant’s father, was given at the time of marriage, including a television, refrigerator, washing machine, motorcycle, etc. However, the husband and his relatives were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and, soon after the marriage, they allegedly started mentally and physically harassing the complainant for additional dowry.
It is further alleged that the complainant was subjected to cruelty and torture and was repeatedly subjected to demands for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and an Alto car. The complainant attempted to persuade the husband and his relatives not to make such demands, as the same were beyond the financial capacity of her father because the complainant was having two younger sister who were still unmarried as such they were incapable to meet out that demand. The complainant initially tolerated the harassment in the hope that the matter would be resolved. However, the accused persons allegedly remained adamant and continued with their demands.
It is further alleged that, when the demand for additional dowry was not fulfilled, the complainant was assaulted. She made efforts to resolve the matrimonial dispute through her family members and other well-wishers, but the matter could not be settled and ultimately the complainant was compelled to leave her matrimonial home, otherwise there was imminent possibility that she would have been murdered for dowry in her matrimonial home.
According to the complainant, on 27.03.2014 at about 11:00 a.m., her husband and the accused-applicants came to her parental house who were welcomed. The husband allegedly demanded Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and an Alto car and told the complainant that only upon fulfilment of the said demand, he would take her back to the matrimonial home, otherwise, he would desert her and solemnize a second marriage. It is further alleged that when the complainant resisted, then her husband assaulted the complainant. The husband with an intention to murder the complainant tried to throttle her neck, and on raising an alarm, her brother and neighbors Mohd. Umar @ Pyare and Dilshad reached the spot and intervened. The accused declared that now they will not keep the complainant and the husband will solemnize second marriage. The complainant failed to get the FIR registered on the same day. The complainant subsequently came to know that her husband, on the instigation of his family members, had contracted the second marriage on 29.03.2014. An FIR was lodged in this matter on 03.04.2014 being Case Crime No.52 of 2014 under Sections 498-A, 307 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Amroha, against the husband Mobin, elder brother-in-law Shaukeen, father-in-law Ali Hussain, mother-in-law Smt. Hazara Khatun, sister-in-law Km. Gulbahar and wife of elder brother Smt. Shabbo @ Shama Parveen. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the husband Mobin and the accused applicants under Section 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Amroha on which cognizance has been taken by the court of Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Amroha, on 29.08.2014 which has been challenged by the accused applicants, who are relatives of the husband of the complainant/opposite party No.2.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicants submits that the allegations levelled by opposite party no. 2 in the F.I.R. are general and omnibus in nature and that no specific role or overt act has been attributed to any of the accused-applicants. He further submits that accused-applicant nos. 1 and 2, namely, Smt. Hazara Khatun, the mother-in-law and Ali Hussain, the father-in-law of opposite party no. 2, respectively, have died during the pendency of the proceedings. Thus, the surviving accused-applicants comprise the elder brother-in-law, the wife of the elder brother-in-law, and the unmarried sister-in-law of opposite party no. 2, against whom no specific role has been assigned in the alleged incident.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicants further submits that, in view of the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the surviving accused-applicants cannot be prosecuted merely on the basis of vague, general and omnibus allegations, particularly when no specific overt act has been attributed to them. It is also submitted that the surviving accused-applicants were residing separately from the complainant and her husband at the relevant point of time and, therefore, they cannot be held liable for the alleged offences.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for complainant-opposite party no. 2 submits that there is no material on record to establish that the surviving accused-applicants were residing separately from the complainant and her husband. He submits that, even in the present application, the accused-applicants have disclosed the same address as that of the husband of the complainant. He further submits that no material has been brought on record by the accused-applicants, including their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., to substantiate their contention that they were residing separately at the relevant time.
Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 further submits that, at this stage, there is no material on record to presume that the accused-applicants were residing separately from the complainant. On the contrary, sufficient material is available on record indicating that the accused-applicants were residing as members of a joint family at the time of the alleged incident. It is, therefore, submitted that the Investigating Officer has rightly submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-applicants and that the present application, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Apex Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others vs. State of Telangana and Another (2025) 3 SCC 735, while examining the scope and applicability of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, underscored the need to scrutinize allegations of cruelty in matrimonial disputes and cautioned against the misuse of the criminal justice system by implicating the husband and his family members on the basis of vague, generalized and omnibus allegations. The Court observed as follows:-
“13.In the instant case, the allegations in the FIR are under Section 498-AIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act.
***
16.An offence is punishable under Section 498-AIPC when a husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty, which may result in imprisonment for a term extending up to three years and a fine. The Explanation under Section 498-AIPC defines “cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-AIPC to mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b). The first limb of clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 498-AIPC, states that “cruelty” means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 498-AIPC, states that cruelty means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Further, clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 498-AIPC states that cruelty would also include harassment of the woman where such harassment is to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
17.Further, Section 3 of the Dowry Act deals with penalty for giving or taking dowry. It states that any person who engages in giving, taking, or abetting the exchange of dowry, shall face a punishment of imprisonment for a minimum of five years and a fine of not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the dowry, whichever is greater.
18.Section 4 of the Dowry Act talks of penalty for demanding dowry. It states that any person demanding dowry directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardians of a bride or bridegroom shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
19.The issue for consideration is whether, given the facts and circumstances of the case and after examining the FIR, the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings against the appellants arising out of FIR No. 82 of 2022 dated 1-2-2022 under Section 498-AIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act.
A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by Respondent 2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that Appellant 1 harassed her and that Appellants 2 to 6 instigated him to do so, Respondent 2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. ***
27.A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. ***
30.The inclusion of Section 498-AIPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-AIPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-AIPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.
31.We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498-AIPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant, husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498-AIPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.
32.In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] observed as follows : (SCC p. 698, para 12)
“12.There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.”
***
34.We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by Respondent 2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against Appellant 1 and his family members i.e. Appellants 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within Category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.”
(emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Chaddha and Others vs. State of UP 2025 SCC Online SC 1094, held as under:-
“8.At the outset, an act of ‘cruelty’ for the purpose of Section 498A, corresponds to a willful conduct of such nature, that may cause danger to the life, limb and health of the woman, which is inclusive of the mental and physical health and the harassment caused to her, by coercing her to meet unlawful demands or impossible standards. Further, the demand for dowry in terms of Section 3 and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 refers to both a direct or indirect manner of demand for dowry made by the husband or his family members. In order to meet the threshold of the offences under Section 498A IPC & Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, the allegations cannot be ambiguous or made in thin air.
9.In the present case, the allegations made by the Complainant are vague, omnibus and bereft of any material particulars to substantiate this threshold. Apart from claiming that Appellant husband harassed her for want of dowry, the Complainant has not given any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. The allegations in the FIR, and the depositions of the prosecution witnesses suggest that on multiple occasions, the Complainant wife was ousted from the matrimonial house, and kicked and punched in the presence of her father, PW-2 herein and she was repeatedly tormented with dowry demands, and when she was unable to honor them, the Appellant and her family physically beat her up; whereas she has not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. It is alleged that the Complainant suffered a miscarriage, as she fell down, when the Appellant and her family who pushed her out of the house; however, no medical document from any medical institution or hospital or nursery was produced to substantiate the allegations.
10.Upon carefully considering the record, we find that apart from the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations of harassment and acts of cruelty within the scope of Section 498A of IPC, and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961. For this reason, we find merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, and are of the considered view that there is no material on record to establish the allegations of hurt or miscarriage, and of hurt and criminal intimidation in terms of Section 323 r/w 34 and Section 506 IPC respectively. The Trial Court has rightly held that evidence of the Complainant is the only strong evidence that she sustained injuries on various parts of her body due to the physical assault by the accused persons, and that there was no medical examination conducted by the Complainant, so as to prove that the miscarriage was a consequence of the physical assault.”
***
Notwithstanding the merits of the case, we are distressed with the manner, the offences under Section 498A IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 are being maliciously roped in by Complainant wives, insofar as aged parents, distant relatives, married sisters living separately, are arrayed as accused, in matrimonial matters. This growing tendency to append every relative of the husband, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations made by the Complainant wife or her family members, and vitiates the very objective of a protective legislation. The observations made by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2025) 3 SCC 735 appropriately encapsulates this essence as under:
“25.A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos. 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No. 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.”
The term “cruelty” is subject to rather cruel misuse by the parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific instances, to say the least. The tendency of roping these sections, without mentioning any specific dates, time or incident, weakens the case of the prosecutions, and casts serious suspicion on the viability of the version of a Complainant. We cannot ignore the missing specifics in a criminal complaint, which is the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State. Be that as it may, we are informed that the marriage of the Appellant has already been dissolved and the divorce decree has attained finality, hence any further prosecution of the Appellant will only tantamount to an abuse of process of law.”
(emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court again in the case of Dr. Sushil Kumar Purbey and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others 2026 SCC OnLine SC 338 reiterated the settled principle that criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC cannot be sustained against the accused on the basis of vague, general and omnibus allegations, particularly where the allegations levelled against them do not disclose any specific role attributable to them. The relevant para is reproduced hereinafter:-
“4.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned counsel for the respondent-State, and the learned Senior Counsel for the complainant-Respondent 2 at length, and have also perused the material placed on record.
5.The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the High Court erred in confining the grant of quashing relief solely to sister-in-law, on the ground that the allegations against her were general in nature, while declining the same relief to the appellants. It is contended that the allegations against the present appellants are equally general and omnibus and that no specific role has been attributed to them in the complaint. It is accordingly submitted that the criminal proceedings against the appellants also merit quashing. It is further submitted that the FIR in question is, in substance, a counter-blast to the divorce petition filed by the husband. In this regard, it is pointed out that whereas the FIR makes no mention of any dowry in the form of a motor vehicle, the complainant within a period of twelve days, supplemented and improved upon her initial version in the complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, adding fresh allegations to the effect that her family had given a Maruti car as dowry. It is submitted that such material improvements to the initial account cast serious doubt on the credibility of the complaint.
6.Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the complainant submits that the allegations against the present appellants are specific and cannot be characterised as general or omnibus. It is further submitted that the trial is at an advanced stage and that the recording of prosecution evidence is already underway. Attention is also drawn to the fact that the High Court has directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within a period of one year. In view of these circumstances, it is urged that the appellants ought to be required to face trial and that this Court should not interfere with the criminal proceedings at this stage.
7.Having considered the submissions advanced by the parties and upon a careful perusal of the material on record, we are of the view that the High Court fell into error in restricting the quashing of criminal proceedings only to the sister-in-law (Respondent 3). A comparative reading of the FIR reveals that the allegations levelled against the sister-in-law and those against the present appellants are, in all material particulars, identical. The FIR does not assign any specific or overt act to either appellant; there are no particular dates, places, or individual acts attributed to them. The lone allegation that stands separately against the present appellants is that they would quarrel. This, however, does not constitute a criminal offence and cannot, by itself, sustain cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 498A & 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Act for which the appellants have been summoned. The standard applied by the High Court in quashing proceedings against the sister-in-law, on the ground that the allegations against her were general and omnibus, applies with equal force to the present appellants, and there is no principled basis for distinguishing between them.”
(emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in aforesaid cases has expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. It has further been held that on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, the relatives of the husband cannot be prosecuted for matrimonial offences. It has been consistently held that the complainant must assign the specific role to the relatives of the husband and in the absence of such averments, the relatives of the husband cannot be forced to face the trial, because it would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
In the instant case, there is a general and omnibus allegation against the accused applicants, who are the relatives of the husband of the complainant, that they along with the husband, demanded dowry of ₹2 Lacs in cash and an Alto car, and when this demand was not fulfilled by the complainant, then she was subjected to mental and physical harassment, and was also assaulted by her husband. The case of the complainant is that when she failed to fulfil the illegal demand of dowry, then she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home.
It is further apparent that the alleged incident occurred when the complainant was residing at her parental house. It is the case of the complainant that on 27.3.2014 at about 11 AM her husband and the accused applicants came to her parental house and thereafter, the husband demanded in dowry ₹2 Lacs in cash and an Alto car and told her that he would only take her back to her matrimonial home, if the above demand was fulfilled otherwise, he would desert her and solemnise 2nd marriage. It is the case of the complainant that when she resisted the above demand, she was assaulted by her husband, who also tried to murder her by strangulating her. It is also apparent that regarding the above incident, the FIR was not registered promptly and it only came to be registered on 03.04.2014 when the complainant became aware that her husband has solemnised 2nd marriage on 29.3.2014. It is further apparent that although the FIR was also registered under Section 307 IPC but on investigation it was found to be false and the chargesheet has only been submitted for offences under Section 498-A IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is apparent that the complainant has assigned a specific role to her husband Mobin only and against the accused applicants, who are the relatives of the husband, only general and omnibus allegations regarding demand of dowry have been levelled. In such circumstances, the accused applicants, in the absence of attribution of any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them regarding the alleged incident, cannot be forced to face the trial, along with the husband of the complainant. Prima-facie, on the basis of the allegations of the FIR, one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence.
For the aforesaid reasons, the continuation of the trial against the accused applicants would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the instant application under Section 482 CrPC deserves to be allowed.
The instant application under Section 482 CrPC is hereby allowed. Consequently, the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 1371 of 2014 arising out of Case crime No. 52 of 2014 State vs. Mobin and others, under Section 498-A IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, police Station Mahila Thana, District Jyotibaphule Nagar(Amroha) against the accused applicants pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, J.P.Nagar, including all the consequential and incidental proceedings arising thereto, are hereby quashed.
It is made clear that the proceedings of the criminal case against the husband Mobin have not been quashed by this Court.
Interim order, if any stands, vacated.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, on merits, in accordance with law.
It is made clear that the trial court will not be bound by any of the observations made by this Court in this order.