The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR and charge-sheet under Sections 85, 351(2), 115(2), 3(5) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against a husband’s father and brother, holding that the allegations made against them did not constitute “cruelty” and amounted to misuse of criminal law in a matrimonial dispute.
The petitions were filed by the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant woman, seeking to quash the FIR registered at Sinhgad Road Police Station, Pune, on allegations of cruelty and misappropriation of jewellery. The FIR was lodged by the complainant following disputes with her husband, alleging that her in-laws induced her to part with her ornaments and later taunted her in connection with dowry.
After examining the allegations, the Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Shyam C. Chandak held that the only allegations against the petitioners were that the father-in-law allegedly blamed the complainant for harassing her husband and expressed dissatisfaction about dowry, while the brother-in-law allegedly taunted her to tolerate her husband’s behaviour. The Court found that even if these allegations were taken at face value, they did not meet the statutory definition of “cruelty”.
Referring to Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 and K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, 2018 (14) SCC 452, the Court reiterated that courts must be cautious in proceeding against relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes when only general or omnibus allegations are made without specific instances of involvement.
The Bench observed that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law, noting that unfounded criminal prosecution causes serious mental, financial, and reputational harm. It held that the FIR appeared to have been lodged primarily due to a personal dispute between the complainant and her husband, and that the relatives were unnecessarily implicated.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the FIR and the subsequent charge sheet.
Appearances
Mr. Pritish Chatterjee with Mr. Nitish Banka for the Petitioners. Ms. Supriya Kak APP for the Respondent-State. Ms. Radhika Mundada for Respondent No.2. Mr. S. S. Chavan, API,Sinhgad police station.
