Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

In a recent observation, Justice Sanjay Kumar Diwedi, presiding over a single-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court, remarked that although section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was introduced to address cruelty inflicted by husbands or their relatives, it is now being misused.

“Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives; however, nowadays, the said section is being misused which has been observed by several High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court,” the court observed.

The HC was considering a plea filed by a husband and his relatives, seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them. The Chief Judicial Magistrate had also taken cognisance of the case.

According to the complainant, her husband’s behaviour changed after several years of peaceful married life. He began quarrelling with her on trivial matters and, at times, resorted to physical assault, using fists and slaps.

Allegedly, the reason behind her husband’s behaviour became evident when he demanded a sum of Rs 5 lakh for her living in his house. In response, the complainant’s family paid Rs 2.5 lakh to the husband along with 25 bhori (about 291.5 g) of gold ornaments.

Furthermore, it was alleged that the husband’s relatives instigated him to demand the amount from her family. In the event of refusal to pay, they even advised him to initiate divorce proceedings against her through legal means.

Advocate Rajesh Kumar, representing the petitioners, argued that initially, cognisance was taken only against the husband. However, a revision application was filed before the sessions court, and the case was subsequently remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration. He further pointed out that the relatives involved were the brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law of the complainant, residing in Lucknow.

Kumar asserted that the allegations against the petitioners were general and omnibus and the court took cognisance only after the case was remanded back by the session's judge.

On the other hand, Advocate Lalan Kumar Singh, representing the wife, argued that there were direct allegations against the petitioners, and the trial court did err in taking cognisance only against the husband. He contended that there was no illegality in the order taking cognisance against the petitioners.

While referring to different judgements of the Supreme Court the bench observed, “The above mentioned cases clearly demonstrate that the Court at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and increase of tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial dispute without analysing the long term ramification of a trial on a complaint,” the bench observed.

The high court while quashing the order taking cognisance against the relatives observed that there were general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners.

“It appears that the petitioners who happened to be brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, there are general and omnibus allegations against them and the learned court has taken cognisance after remand of the matter by the learned sessions judge and the learned sessions judge has also observed that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and the learned court was not having any option and he has taken cognisance against the petitioner,” the bench noted.

The HC clarified that it has not interfered with the complaint case as well as the order taking cognisance so far as the husband of the complainant is concerned and trial against the husband will proceed, in accordance with the law.

Case title: Umesh Kumar & Ors vs State of Maharshtra & Anr