Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Under Section 478A IPC Against In-Laws Of A Wife, Says, “The Complaint Is Rather Unique”

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) of India quashed a criminal case under Section 478A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the in-laws of a woman (complainant-wife). While quashing the case, the bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed that the complaint was ‘rather unique’. It said, “The FIR, in this case, is rather unique, in as much as the complainant has chosen not to involve her husband in the criminal proceedings, particularly when all the allegations relate to demand of dowry. It appears that the complainant and her husband have distributed amongst themselves, the institution of civil and criminal proceedings against the appellants. While the husband institutes the civil suit, his wife, the complainant has chosen to initiate criminal proceedings. Interestingly, there is no reference of one proceeding in the other.” 

In this case, the FIR was filed under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellants, who are her stepmother-in-law (appellant), stepbrother-in-law, and father-in-law. The learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, contended that the allegations in the FIR are general and omnibus in nature and lack material particulars bereft of any details, rendering the complaint vague and obscure. By an impugned order, the High Court held that a prima facie case of cruelty is made out under Section 498A. After identifying certain allegations in the Complaint/FIR, the High Court came to a quick conclusion that there are specific allegations against each accused. After referring to certain precedents on the scope and ambit of the power under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court concluded that the exercise of power under Section 482 for quashing an FIR/Complaint is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 

The SC bench set aside the decision of the HC and observed that the criminal proceedings were instituted with a mala fide intention, only to harass the appellants. It further referred to its earlier judgment in the Mohammad Wajid and Another v. State of U.P. and Others case which stated that “The duty of the High Court, when its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked on the ground that the Complaint/FIR is manifestly frivolous, vexatious or instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, to examine the allegations with care and caution.” The bench further said, “We are not referring to all the findings of the Court dismissing the domestic violence complaint. It is sufficient to note that identical allegations were examined in detail, subjected to strict scrutiny, and rejected as being false and untenable. This case is yet another instance of abuse of criminal process and it would not be fair and just to subject the appellants to the entire criminal law process.”

After hearing the matter, the SC bench concluded, “...none of the ingredients of Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC are made out. We have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the appellants, the same will be nothing short of abuse of process of law and travesty of justice.” The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court in Criminal Application and quashed FIR bearing Crime filed under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.