New Delhi, Nov 4 The Delhi High Court has cautioned against the “growing tendency” to misuse Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by indiscriminately implicating distant relatives of husbands in matrimonial disputes without any proof of their direct involvement.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed while quashing an FIR registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC against the husband’s ‘maasi’ (maternal aunt) and her daughter in a dowry harassment case lodged by the wife.
The Delhi High Court noted that the petitioners did not reside with the complainant-wife or her husband and that the allegations against them were “vague, generic and omnibus” in nature.
“Mere taunts, casual references, vague assertions or general family friction that occur in the ordinary wear and tear of marital life are not sufficient to fall within the definition of ‘cruelty’ as embodied under Section 498A of the IPC,” Justice Mahajan said.
Observing that such allegations “dilute the very intent and sanctity” of the anti-dowry-related violence law, the Delhi High Court said that Section 498A is now often invoked to “rope in even distant relatives of husbands, being uncles, aunts and extended family members who do not even reside in the matrimonial house of the woman.”
Referring to several Supreme Court rulings, Justice Mahajan reiterated that courts must guard against “over-implication” and “exaggerated versions” intended to pressurise the main accused. “If the allegations are far-fetched and it appears that the provisions of Section 498A of the IPC are misused, the Court can interfere while exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC,” added the Delhi High Court.
Finding no “grave suspicion” against the petitioners, Justice Mahajan quashed the proceedings, while clarifying that the trial court would be free to proceed against them if fresh evidence emerged later.
“In the opinion of this Court, no grave suspicion arises against the petitioners for the purpose of framing of charges under Sections 498A/406 of the IPC…. (and) deems it apposite to quash the consequential proceedings arising out of the present FIR.
However, if at some stage, the trial court finds evidence to proceed against the petitioners, it is open to the learned trial court to take appropriate steps in accordance with CrPC,” said the Delhi High Court.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor