Expressing displeasure over woman misusing Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deals with cruelty by husband and his family members, the Bombay High Court observed that when such provisions are invoked, the same need to be looked at with an “element of realism and not merely pedantically or hyper technically”.
The court has quashed an FIR filed by the Pune police in 2012 against a man, his mother and his two aunts, in a complaint by his wife alleging cruelty. It noted that the woman had made allegations of a similar nature against the man and his parents in 2006, which was later withdrawn after a compromise between the parties.
“This is yet another case where welfare provisions such as Section 498-A etc of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 enacted to address dowry-related harassment and other forms of cruelty, both physical and mental have been misused to harass the in-laws by roping them in a false case,” a bench of Justices Ajey Gadkari and Neela Gokhale said on Friday.
The bench remarked that setting criminal law in motion has serious consequences which violates the sanctity of the investigating agency and makes a mockery of the judicial system. “Setting into motion law enforcement machinery leads to serious consequences for innocent family members. Elderly parents, siblings and distant relatives of the accused are often implicated in the complaint without direct involvement. This case is an example where the complainant and her family members have violated the sanctity of law enforcement agency and even made a mockery of the judicial system,” the bench added.
Comparing the allegations made by the woman in the 2006 FIR with those made in the 2012 complaint, the court noted that there is no marked difference in the same. Surprisingly the 2012 FIR and the 2006 FIR indicate the alleged date of commission of offence to be April 16, 2006 onwards till date
The woman and her father had resiled from their allegations in the 2006 FIR while deposing before the magistrate, which resulted in an acquittal of the husband and his parents.
Dismissing her contentions, the court said that once she deposed on oath before a jurisdictionally competent court denying the ill-treatment, she cannot repeat the same allegations after the accused are acquitted based on her evidence.
On a court query, the husband’s advocate informed that the two had divorced on April 1, 2017.
“We find that the provision of 498-A IPC has been totally misused by the complainant. Legislations, enacted with some policy to curb and alleviate some public evil rampant in society and effectuate a definite public purpose or benefit positively, require to be interpreted with a certain element of realism too and not merely pedantically or hyper technically,” the court said while quashing the FIR.
