Read Time: 08 minutes

Holding that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever, the Supreme Court has remarked that this has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.

In this regard, a bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari further mentioned that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention.

The Court also relied on the landmark judgment in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., wherein it was observed:-

“4. ....The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.”

Referring to various judgments, the bench noted that the top court at numerous instances had expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused.

"...false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law", added the Court.

An appeal was filed against the judgment and order passed by the Patna High Court dismissed a petition filed under S. 482 CrPC, whereby the appellant/in-laws had challenged an FIR that implicated them for offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The issue which arose for determination in the instant case was whether allegations made against the in-laws/appellants were in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed.

Upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated April 1, 2019, the court found that general allegations were levelled against the in-laws.

"The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes."

When the State of Bihar referred to an FIR filed previously, the Court said,

"Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law."

Thus while holding that general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial, the Court went on to set aside the impugned judgment and quash the FIR filed against the in-laws.

Cause Title: KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM & ORS. v STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.