Read Time: 14 minutes
In the case at hand, Supreme Court observed that there was no prima facie evidence to suggest that the accused had committed the alleged offences
The Supreme Court, on November 26, 2024, highlighted the need for courts to examine the over-implication of a husband's relatives in cases of dowry harassment, stating that it is their irrecusable duty to ascertain whether the allegations against such persons are exaggerated.
A bench of Justices C. T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal quashed the 2020 FIR and the charge sheet filed against one Payal Sharma, who was the wife of the cousin of a man accused of indulging in dowry harassment, cheating, and other offences.
The petitioner contended that she was only the wife of the cousin brother of the first accused, who was the husband of the daughter of the complainant. She stated that she resided with her husband at Mohali in Punjab, whereas the complainant’s daughter, Smt Vandana, resided in her matrimonial home at Jalandhar, Punjab. In other words, they lived in different cities.
She also argued that the FIR carried only allegations of general, ominous, and omnibus character against herself and her husband. She claimed they were arraigned as accused with mala fide intent to pressurize them into yielding to illegal demands. She emphasized that no specific and separate allegations with supporting materials were available against her beyond exaggerated claims, and that the High Court should not have dismissed her petition, especially after granting relief to her husband in the same matter.
Citing Preeti Gupta & Anr vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010), the bench said, "We have no hesitation to hold that the said observation of this court is in fact, sounding of a caution, against non-discharge of the duty to see whether implication of a person who is not a close relative of the family of the husband is over implication or whether allegation against any such person is an exaggerated version, in matrimonial disputes of this nature."
In this context, the bench pointed out that the term "relative" is not defined in the statute and, therefore, must be assigned a meaning as commonly understood.
Hence, it can normally be taken to include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew, niece, grandson, or granddaughter of any individual or the spouse of any such person. To put it briefly, it includes a person related by blood, marriage, or adoption, the court said.
"In such circumstances, normally against a person who is not falling under any of these categories when allegations are raised, in the light of the observations made in Preeti Gupta’s case, the court concerned owes an irrecusable duty to see whether such implication is over implication and/or whether the allegations against such a person is an exaggerated version," the bench said.
"In matters like the one at hand when relatives not residing in the same house where the alleged victim resides, the courts shall not stop consideration by merely looking into the question where the accused is a person falling within the ambit of the expression ‘relative’ for the purpose of Section 498-A, IPC, but should also consider whether it is a case of over implication or exaggerated version solely to implicate such person(s) to pressurise the main accused," the bench added.
Addressing other offences alleged against the petitioner, the bench noted that cheating simpliciter is punishable under Section 417, IPC.
The court stated that, to bring home an offence under Section 415, punishable under Section 417, IPC, there must be:
"The difference between Section 417 and Section 420, IPC, is that where in pursuance of the deception, no property passes, the offence is one of cheating punishable under Section 417, IPC, but where, in pursuance of the deception, property is delivered, the offence is punishable under Section 420, IPC," it said.
The court stated that when the ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 417, IPC, are not satisfied, there cannot be any question of such allegations or accusations attracting Section 420, IPC. The court explained that to bring a case within the ambit of Section 420, IPC, it requires not only cheating simpliciter but also dishonest inducement of the person deceived to deliver property or to make an alteration or destruction of any valuable security.
In the context of the case, the bench observed that such accusations did not come from the horse’s mouth but only from the father of the wife of the first accused.
The court also noted that, except for vague allegations, the complainant did not provide specific details against the accused.
"A scanning of the materials on record would reveal that the complainant (the wife's father) was fully aware of the fact that accused were living in Mohali in Punjab whereas his daughter was living in Jalandhar. Even then he did not state when the appellant visited the place where his daughter was living," the bench said.
The court found that the complainant’s daughter married the first accused, Amit Sharma, on February 23, 2019, and Amit Sharma left for Canada on March 7, 2019. The complainant’s daughter stayed back in her matrimonial home at Jalandhar and later, on December 2, 2019, she also left for Canada.
"On a careful consideration of FIR and the final report and materials we have no hesitation to hold that there is nothing on record to suggest, even prima facie, that they would constitute the alleged offences against the accused," the bench said.
The court held that the High Court should have interfered and quashed the subject FIR and all other proceedings related to accused No. 5, viz., the wife of accused No. 6, as well.
"To secure interest of justice in the circumstances obtained, we are of the considered view that filing of the chargesheet cannot be a reason for interfering with impugned order in respect of accused No 6 or rejecting the prayer of accused No 5 to quash the proceedings and to make them to argue or to raise the legal and factual issues at the stage of framing of the charges. It is evident that making them to face the trial based on the allegations or accusation as referred above would be nothing but an abuse of process of court," the bench said.
Case Title: Payal Sharma Vs State of Punjab & Anr
Please Login or Register
