The Supreme Court has advised lower courts to avoid the unnecessary inclusion of a husband’s distant relatives in criminal cases filed by a wife alleging domestic cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
This observation came from a bench of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal while quashing the criminal proceedings against the husband’s cousin and his wife, who were named as accused in an FIR filed by the wife’s father.
The petitioners moved the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to quash the case against them. In criticizing the High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court emphasized that it was the High Court’s responsibility to determine whether the involvement of the husband’s distant relatives amounted to an “over-implication” and an “exaggerated version” of the events.
In this context, the bench quoted the observations made in Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr (2010) 7 SCC 667 that “The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of sufferings of ignominy.”
The Court said that the above observation was in fact “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.”
The Court noted that the term “relative” is not defined in the statute and must be interpreted according to its common understanding. Thus, it generally refers to a person’s father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew, niece, grandson, or granddaughter, as well as the spouse of any such individual. In essence, a relative is someone connected by blood, marriage, or adoption.
When allegations are made against someone who is not related by blood, marriage, or adoption, the courts are required to evaluate whether the accusations are exaggerated.
“In such circumstances, normally against a person who is not falling under any of the aforesaid categories when allegations are raised, in the light of the observations made in Preeti Gupta’s case (supra), 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,” stated the judgment authored by Justice Ravikumar.
The Court also referenced the judgment in Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr (2012) 10 SCC 741, which held that a mere casual mention of family members’ names in a matrimonial dispute, without any allegations of their direct involvement, does not justify taking action against them. The judgment warned against the practice of over-implication, where all members of a household are dragged into a domestic conflict, particularly when the dispute occurs shortly after the marriage.
Considering that the petitioners resided in a different city (Mohali) from the complainant’s daughter (Jalandhar), the Court further observed:
“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 Court noted that the allegations were “general and sweeping” in nature, with no prima facie evidence to support that the offenses were committed. The bench remarked, “It is evident that subjecting them to trial based on these allegations would constitute an abuse of the court’s process.”
The FIR was filed shortly after the husband initiated divorce proceedings against the wife. In addition to the husband and his parents, the complainant (the wife’s father) also leveled allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty against the husband’s cousin and his wife. The High Court declined to intervene, pointing out that the final report had already been filed.
The Supreme Court stated that the filing of the final report cannot be the sole reason for denying intervention. “It is clear that subjecting them to trial based on the aforementioned allegations would amount to an abuse of the court’s process,” the Court emphasized.
You May Also Like:
How Indian Courts Define A Married Woman’s Rightful Place 
Hindu Marriage Act 1955 
Change in legal position in the definition of Shared Household post Ahuja Judgement 
Tolerance is Essential in Marriage, but Courts Must Be Wary of False FIRs Due to Overreactions from the Wife’s Family: Gujarat High Court