The Supreme Court has held that in matrimonial prosecutions, criminal proceedings against the husband’s relatives cannot be sustained where the FIR and chargesheet contain only general allegations of presence, knowledge or encouragement, without specific and particularised allegations disclosing their active involvement in cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
The Court further held that for fastening liability under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC upon relatives of the spouse, mere knowledge of the second marriage is insufficient; there must be prima facie material showing an overt act or omission amounting to active participation, facilitation or encouragement in the solemnisation of the second marriage.
Accordingly, where such specific material is absent, continuation of proceedings against the relatives amounts to abuse of process, warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC / appellate interference with refusal to quash, and the proceedings were therefore quashed qua the accused-appellants.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the gravamen of the complaint lay against the husband, against whom specific allegations of physical assault, demand of dowry and mental torture were made with reference to specific dates and incidents. In contrast, the allegations against the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law were largely of presence, encouragement, receipt of money, or benefit from sale proceeds, without specific acts of demand, threat, physical assault, cruelty or coercion attributed to them on identifiable occasions.
Referring to the decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs State of Telangana [(2025) 3 SCC 735], the Bench reiterated that a mere reference to names of family members in matrimonial disputes, without specific allegations indicating active involvement, should be nipped in the bud, since generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.
On Section 494 IPC, the Bench observed that the complainant must prima facie prove an overt act or omission of the accused persons in the second marriage ceremony. The prosecution had failed to provide cogent evidence of such overt act, and mere knowledge of the second marriage, even if assumed, was insufficient to establish common intention in the absence of material showing active participation, facilitation or encouragement in solemnisation of that marriage.
Briefly, the Respondent No. 2 alleged that after her marriage on December 19, 2007, she was subjected to dowry harassment from the inception of marriage, including physical assault and mental torture by her husband, with demands for Rs. 30 lakhs and 47 sovereigns of gold. She further alleged continued harassment in Abu Dhabi, India and Saudi Arabia, sale of 153 gold sovereigns, monetary payments by her brother to the husband’s parents, and later discovery that her husband had contracted a second marriage on May 21, 2013 while suppressing the subsisting first marriage.
After investigation, a chargesheet was filed on September 11, 2018 and charges were framed. In July 2023, the accused-relatives invoked Section 482 CrPC before the High Court seeking quashing, but the High Court declined relief on the ground that the prosecution records justified trial, and refused to quash proceedings arising from FIR registered at Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram under Sections 494 and 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC, on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law.
Appearances:
AOR M/s M R Law Associates, along with Advocates Abhilash M.R., Manjari Singh, Sandra Jaison, Ann Melvin, and Rajkumar, for the Appellant
AORs Nishe Rajen Shonker and Lakshmi N. Kaimal, along with Advocates Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Devika A.L., Santhosh K, Renjith B. Marar, Arun Poomulli, Harsh Vardhan Shyam, and Jeby Mather, for the Respondent
