Relatives Of Husband Cannot Be Booked U/S 498A IPC Merely Because They Asked Wife To Tolerate His Cruel Behaviour: Bombay HC

It is quite interesting to note that in a very significant development pertaining to the cases that are lodged under Section 498A IPC and having very far reaching implications, the Bombay High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Samad Habib Mithani and 3 others vs The State of Maharashtra and Fareen in Criminal Application (APL) No. 1241 of 2014 With Interim Application No. 779 of 2020 that was pronounced recently on 25 July 2024 has minced just no words to state unequivocally that merely because the complaint states that the in-laws supported the husband in subjecting her to cruelty would not mean that they have committed the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. We thus see that the Bombay High Court has made it indubitably clear that relatives of a husband cannot be charged under Section 498A IPC merely for advising the wife to tolerate the husband’s bad behaviour who subjected her to cruelty. We must also note that the Bombay High Court thus quashed and set aside the case under Section 498A IPC of cruelty against four members of a family who were all in-laws of a woman while allowing the application.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Ms Manjusha Deshpande for a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Bharati Dangare and herself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The Applicants have filed the present Criminal Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”), with a prayer to quash and set aside the First Information Report (“F.I.R.”) dated 07.03.2014, registered at the instance of the Respondent No.2 with the Pydhonie Police Station, vide C.R. No. 86 of 2014, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.”), as against the Applicants.”

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 that, “The Applicants are relatives of the Respondent No.2 who is wife of Accused No.1, in the offence registered against the Applicants, alongwith their son and husband of the Respondent No.2. Though initially offence has been registered under Sections 498-A, 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC, however Section 406, 344, 347, 376, 376(b), 506 of the IPC, have been added and charge-sheet has been filed against the Applicants on 07.03.2014 itself. The present matter was filed in this Court on 02.12.2014 and the charge-sheet has been filed on 07.03.2014. When the matter was heard by this Court on 12.07.2016, (Coram : A. S. Oka & A. A. Sayed, JJ.), notice was issued to the Respondent No.2 and by way of interim-relief, it was directed that if the charge-sheet is already filed, the trial shall not proceed as against the Applicants. Therefore, so far as the present Applicants are concerned, the trial has not proceeded as against them. Thereafter, the matter was listed on various occasions and the interim relief was continued from time to time.”

As we see, the Division Bench discloses in para 8 that, “The Respondent No.2 has filed a reply in the present Application. On going through the said reply, it is nothing but the reiteration of the complaint. In the reply filed by the Respondent No.2 she has narrated some incidents and has made allegations that, when the present Applicant Nos.3 and 4 visited their house, they informed something against the Respondent No.2 to the Applicant Nos.1 and 2 and accused No.1. Upon hearing the said information given by the Applicant Nos.3 and 4, the accused No.1 started beating the Respondent No.2, with bare hands and threatened with knife. The other allegation is that Applicant No.1 alongwith accused No.1 threatened and restrained her from leaving the house after accused No.1 had uttered the word ‘Talak’ thrice, which amounted to Talak. The Applicants have forced her to have physical relations with accused No.1, inspite of the ‘Triple Talak’. Apart from the allegations made in the FIR, there is nothing new stated by the Respondent No.2 in her affidavit. She has prayed that the present Application may be dismissed.”

Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 9 that, “The charge-sheet has already been filed in the present matter on 07.03.2014. On going through the said charge-sheet, the statement of witnesses recorded does not in any way indicate towards the complicity of the present Applicants in the said offence. The tenor of the FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation supports the allegations as against accused No.1 i.e. husband of the Respondent No.2. None of the statements, support the allegations of ill-treatment and cruelty at the hands of the applicants. From the statement of the mother of the Respondent No.2 Smt. Yasmin Iqbal Lakha, the only allegations against the present Applicants seem to be that inspite of the conduct of her husband Danish, the Applicants used to take side with Danish and convince her to tolerate the conduct and treatment given by the accused No.1. There is no incident narrated by the said witness indicating that the Applicants have given ill-treatment to the Respondent No.2. In fact, in her statement she has narrated an incident of 02.10.2013 when she had been to house of the Respondent No.2 after receiving information of Talak. While taking back the Respondent No.2 to reside with her uncle. The Respondent No.2 had taken some of her gold ornaments and clothes with her, while some of the ornaments were left behind in her matrimonial house. She does not state that the Respondent No.2 was restrained from taking away her valuables, while leaving the house, by the Applicants.”

Most significantly, what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment is then laid bare in para 10 postulating that, “The other statement is that of uncle of the Respondent No.2 Mohammad Aslam Abdul Sattar, who is also near relative of the Respondent No.2. In his statement he has narrated an incident, when after one of the altercations/fight between the accused No.1 and the Respondent No.2, he had volunteered to take the Respondent No.2 with him for some days. On which the accused No.1 had resisted and told the Respondent No.2 that if she wants to go, she may go but she should leave their son Yasin and she cannot take him with her. According to the said witness, the present Applicants have convinced the Accused No.1 that the son is too young as Respondent No.2 was still feeding the baby, he will not survive without her. This itself shows that though the accused No.1 was ill-treating the Respondent No.2, the present Applicants protected and shielded her. He has also repeated that whenever there used to be fight between the accused No.1 and Respondent No.2, the parents of the accused used to convince her that she should tolerate the behaviour of accused No.1. Hence, from the above mentioned statements of the relatives of the Respondent No.2, it is obvious that there are no serious allegations as such against the present Applicants. These are merely omnibus allegations which are not supported by any evidence, as regards the ill-treatment and cruelty meted to the Respondent No.2. The allegations in the complaint are general and vague without specific examples of cruelty and harassment. The record and the statements do not support the allegations made against the present Applicants. The complaint against the present Applicants is not supported by any documents, letter, e-mails, message to support the allegation of cruelty and harassment.”

Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 11 that, “It seems that alongwith the accused No.1, being his family members, the present Applicants have been dragged into litigation. Presently there is a rising tendency by the litigants to drag the in-laws and near relatives in the offence registered under Section 498-A. This is also one of the example of its kind.”

While citing a relevant and remarkable case law, the Bench propounds in para 15 that, “In the case of R. P. Kapur V/s. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1960 SC 866, the Hon’ble Apex Court had summarized the categories of cases where inherent powers can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. The three categories are reproduced here-in below:

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.”

Most remarkably, the Bench underscores in para 16 mandating that, “In our opinion, the case of the present Applicants would fall under the category (ii) from the above referred three categories, where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint taken to its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. Merely, remarks in the complaint about the supporting the accused No.1 while narrating some of the incidents would not per se amount to committing the offences which they have been alleged of. It would be unfair to continue the prosecution against the present Applicants for the conduct of the accused No.1, in which they have been unfortunately dragged. From the various incidents which have been narrated by the Respondent No.2 as well as the witnesses, who are her near relatives, there does not appear to be complicity of the present Applicants. The continuation of present proceedings against the Applicants would cause injustice and hardship to the Applicants. Even otherwise, the material collected during the investigation does not support the charges levelled against the present Applicants. The malafide proceedings initiated against the present Applicants needs to be curbed at this stage itself, in order to prevent abuse or process of law and miscarriage of justice, since it is obvious that the allegations are not supported by any other cogent material and have been made with a view to wreak vengeance against the present Applicants.”

Finally and as a corollary, the Division Bench then concludes by holding and directing in para 17 that, “Therefore, in view of the conspectus of the matter, we find that the present Application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. As a result the FIR dated 07.03.2014, registered at the instance of the Respondent No.2 with the Pydhonie Police Station, vide C.R. No. 86 of 2014, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC, is quashed and set aside, only to the extent of present Applicants. The Application stands disposed of in the above terms, as a result all the pending applications are disposed off.”

By all accounts, it must be said that giving a blank cheque to only women and always believing women’s version only is most preposterous and most dangerous! I very strongly believe that the ruthless, reprehensible and rampant misuse of laws meant for safety of women as most powerful weapons to extort huge amount of money or send a men and his parents and relatives to jail cannot any longer be lightly dismissed by anyone and definitely should never go unpunished, unhindered and unaccounted for! No doubt, it has to be conceded that this leading case law stand as a living testimony to the irrefutable fact that women can no longer be always trusted and men only be always blamed for everything!

It must be definitely underscored that this rampant abuse of laws by women and her parents and relatives definitely deserves to be punished most strictly so that the men and his relatives and parents don’t suffer endlessly for no fault of theirs! It brooks no more delay now and our law makers must act most promptly in this direction! Let’s fervently hope so!

There can be just no gainsaying that it must be most strictly ensured that those women and her relatives who misuse the anti-dowry laws like Section 498A of IPC and so also rape laws and other laws meant for safety of women and girls like POCSO must be definitely sent behind bars for the term which a men would have been sentenced if he was convicted of the offence so that a very loud and clear message goes out that laws are meant to be used and not abused or misused. It definitely cannot be denied by anyone that women who is now overshadowing men in each and every sphere of life cannot be allowed to always have the free run to file false cases yet escape unpunished and must now be made to face mandatory jail term and huge fine so that no women or her relatives in future ever dare to misuse penal laws and play havoc with the life of man, his parents and relatives as they are meant for the protection of women and not for being misused against men and his relatives either to extract money or to settle personal scores or to pressurize accused! The earlier the penal laws are amended in this regard, the better it shall be for the society in the longer run! No denying!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.