Some Wives Lodge S. 498A IPC Cases Against Husband and His Family to Wreak Vengeance: Kerala HC

While ruling on a very significant legal point pertaining to the gross misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by some wives against their husbands and in-laws, the Kerala High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Shyamala Bhasker vs The State of Kerala & Anr in Crl.MC No. 4360 of 2019 and cited in Neutral Citation No. : 2024 : KER : 35655 that was pronounced as recently as on May 30, 2024 held in no uncertain terms that certain wives initiate criminal cases based on vague allegations to defame the image of the husband and his relatives. The Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice A Badharudeen who authored this notable judgment opined clearly that courts ought to be especially mindful when considering cases involving allegations of cruelty to wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It must be definitely mentioned here that the Kerala High Court was dealing with a criminal miscellaneous case that had been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by a 61-year-old woman against the case that had been pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Kerala High Court in this leading case very rightly underscores the necessity for the courts to scrutinize thoroughly all the allegations that are made in the matrimonial disputes to prevent blatant, brazen and blind abuse of legal provisions meant for the safety of women like Section 498A of IPC. At the same time, it was also made absolutely clear by the Kerala High Court that those who commit offences under Section 498A shall be prosecuted, penalized and punished! No denying!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice A Badharudeen of Kerala High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C’ for short) by the 2nd accused in C.C.No.637/2018 on the files of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the prayers herein are as under:

“a. Call for records pertaining to Annexure A2 final report and quash the same against the petitioner by invoking the powers of this Hon’ble Court u/s. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.

b. To issue any other order or direction appropriate in the circumstances of this case.””

Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 2 that, “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the documents including the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.”

As it turned out, the Bench then enunciates in para 3 that, “It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in C.C.No.637/2018 is not liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short), since the prosecution materials do not suggest any overt acts at the instance of the petitioner to attract the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that as per the F.I statement, the only allegation against the 2nd accused is that the 2nd accused became a spectator while the defacto complainant was persecuted at the instance of the 1st accused and she did not interfere to stop the same. Accordingly, it is submitted that the case against the 2nd accused is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed a latest decision of the Apex Court reported in [2024 KHC OnLine 6257 : 2024 (3) KHC SN 24 : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 343 : 2024 KLT OnLine 1481], Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana to canvass the point that the courts must appreciate the materials and all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case. A very technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very intend of the marriage. Paragraph 25 of the decision has been referred to contend that some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. In paragraph 25, the Apex Court held as under:

“If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute.””

Briefly stated, the Bench observes in para 6 that, “Going by the definition, subjecting a woman to cruelty by husband or relative of the husband likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman or harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view 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 is an offence. In the decision in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana’s case (supra), the Apex Court considered earlier decisions of the Apex Court dealing with Section 498A of IPC and it was held that general and sweeping allegations without mentioning specific instances of criminal conduct is an abuse of the process of court and in such cases the courts owe a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving some individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly, when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 7 that, “Coming to the crux of this matter, it is emphatically clear that in the F.I statement, the allegation against the mother is that when the 1st accused beaten the defacto complainant, the 2nd accused, became a spectator and she did not interfere to stop the same. The further allegation is that the husband/1st accused subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty continuously, both physically and mentally, as abetted by the mother. Apart from that, there is an allegation against the mother in the statements of the mother and father of the defacto complainant, that the mother of the petitioner/2nd accused also ill-treated the defacto complainant demanding dowry. But the said statements appear to be hearsay, since it was stated that those imputations were conveyed by the defacto complainant. But in the statement of the defacto complainant, no such specific allegation is seen narrated. Most importantly, how and why the mother/2nd accused/petitioner abetted the crime is not specifically stated.”

Do note, the Bench notes in para 8 that, “Though it is argued by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor that the statements attributing abetment against the mother/2nd accused available from the prosecution records alone are sufficient to go for trial and this is not a case of quashment, it could be seen that only omnibus allegations raised against the mother to the effect that the mother also abetted crime, without narrating any specific overt acts, with certainty how the mother ill-treated or persecuted the defacto complainant. The statements of the mother and father of the defacto complainant are, in fact, hearsay, as already observed.”

Most significantly, most remarkably and most forthrightly, the Bench then holds in para 9 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “It is noticed that in matrimonial disputes, in order to wreak vengeance against the husband and relatives of the husband, certain wives initiate criminal proceedings on the strength of vague and omnibus allegations against the parents, sisters, brothers and other relatives of the husband with ulterior motive to put them under the veil of prosecution involving non-bailable offences and to face the ordeal of criminal prosecution and trial by the parents, sisters, brothers and other relatives of the husband, so as to malign and defame their image in the society. In such cases, it is the duty of the court to analyse materials available when quashment is sought whether the allegations specifically state anything dealt under Section 498A so as to prosecute the accused for the said offences, by subjecting themselves for trial. The cases where no specific allegations to go for trial, prima facie, such cases shall be quashed by the High Court by invoking power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. At the same time, when specific allegations pointing out the overt acts which would attract the offence under Section 498A could be seen, prima facie, from the prosecution case, such cases shall not be quashed.”

It is worth noting that the Bench notes and directs in para 10 that, “In the instant case, as I have already pointed out, only general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instance of cruelty at the instance of the mother/2nd accused is the substratum on which the mother got arraigned as an accused. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case discussed, the quashment as sought by the petitioner is liable to be allowed.”

Finally, the Bench then directs and concludes by holding in para 11 that, “Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Annexure A2 final report against the petitioner herein/2nd accused is quashed, with direction to the trial court to expedite trial against the 1st accused, without fail. Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the jurisdictional court forthwith, for information and further action.”

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.