Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has warned against unnecessary prosecutions launched against the in-laws for the sole purpose of humiliating them as an act of reprisal of the matrimonial grudge with the husband of the complainant.

The court, presided over by Justice G. Girish, made the observation while quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against the mother in-law and sister-in-laws of a woman complainant, accusing them under Sections 498A (Cruelty by husband or relative of husband), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The complainant (third respondent) had filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur, alleging that her husband (accused no.1), along with his mother and two sisters (accused nos.2 to 4), subjected her to cruelty, misappropriated her gold ornaments, and deceived her in financial matters. Based on this complaint, the Judicial Magistrate directed the Kodungallur Police to investigate under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

Following the initial investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police filed a final report against the complainant’s husband alone, omitting the in-laws from the charge sheet. Dissatisfied with this, the complainant approached the District Police Chief, who ordered a further investigation. The second investigation led to the filing of another final report, this time naming the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law as additional accused. The Magistrate subsequently took cognizance of the case and issued summons to all four accused.

The petitioners (accused nos.2 to 4) approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, seeking to quash the proceedings against them on the grounds that no credible evidence implicated them in the alleged offences. The petitioners argued that the allegations against them were vague and lacked any specific details. It was contended that the initial police investigation had excluded them due to the absence of any incriminating evidence and the subsequent inclusion of the in-laws in the charge sheet was a result of undue influence exerted by the complainant through the District Police Chief, rather than on the basis of new material evidence.

The complaint was served notice but did not appear before the court. No counter-affidavit was filed for contesting the petition.

The court, referencing the Supreme Court’s rulings in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022) and Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010), expressed: “general and omnibus allegations made out on account of small skirmishes cannot be the basis for initiating proceedings for the commission of offences under Section 498A I.P.C against the in-laws…courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes, and that the relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.”

The court, after perusing the material on record, found that the allegations against the petitioners were vague and retaliatory in nature. The court held: “It is not possible to say that the offences under Section 498A, 406 and 420 I.P.C would be brought out from the above generalised and superficial allegations.”

The court concluded that the prayer for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners was well-founded as the prosecution of the petitioners appeared to be an act of reprisal against the in-laws due to the complainant’s grievance with her husband.

Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.

 

Cause Title: Fathima v State of Kerala [CRL.MC NO. 603 OF 2019]

Appearance: For the Petitioners- Advocate Mansoor B.H.; For the Respondents- Public Prosecutor Seena C.