The Supreme Court has urged lower courts to refrain from unnecessarily implicating a husband’s distant relatives in cases filed by a wife accusing domestic cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
This remark was made by a bench of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal while quashing the criminal proceedings against the husband’s cousin and his wife, who had been named as accused in an FIR filed by the wife’s father.
The petitioners approached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to quash the case against them. Criticizing the High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court stressed that it was the responsibility of the High Court to assess whether the involvement of distant relatives was an instance of “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 observed that the term “relative” is not defined in the statute and should be interpreted based on its common meaning. Typically, it refers to a person’s father, mother, spouse, children, siblings, nephews, nieces, grandchildren, or the spouse of any of these individuals. In essence, a relative is someone related by blood, marriage, or adoption.
When accusations are made against someone who is not related by blood, marriage, or adoption, the courts must assess whether the allegations are overstated.
“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 referred to the ruling in Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr (2012) 10 SCC 741, which stated that a mere casual mention of family members’ names in a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations of their direct involvement, does not warrant action against them. The judgment cautioned against the practice of over-implication, where all household members are unnecessarily drawn into a domestic conflict, especially when the dispute arises soon after the marriage. Noting that the petitioners lived 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 observed that the allegations were “general and sweeping,” with no prima facie evidence to support the claims that the offenses were committed. The bench remarked, “It is clear that subjecting them to trial based on these allegations would amount to an abuse of the court’s process.” The FIR was filed shortly after the husband initiated divorce proceedings against the wife. Along with the husband and his parents, the complainant (the wife’s father) also accused the husband’s cousin and his wife of dowry harassment and cruelty. The High Court refused to intervene, noting that the final report had already been filed.
The Supreme Court stated that the filing of the final report cannot be the only basis for denying intervention. “It is evident that subjecting them to trial based on the allegations mentioned would constitute an abuse of the court’s process,” the Court emphasized.
