Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 223 (KER)

BRINDA RANA v. STATE OF KERALA

2025-02-10

C.JAYACHANDRAN

body2025
ORDER : (C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.) The petitioners are accused nos.3 & 4 in C.C.No.1050/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Haripad. The offences alleged are under Sections 498 A, 406 and 323, read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case was registered pursuant to a complaint preferred by the defacto complainant/wife, wherein sworn statement was recorded, and the Court chose to proceed against the accused persons. 2 . The ground canvassed by the petitioners (accused nos.3 & 4) is that, there is no specific allegation, against them, except certain vague allegations. In order to constitute the offence under Section 498A, such vague and omnibus allegations are not sufficient, as settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to Annexure-1 complaint, to point out that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners (Accused nos.3 & 4). The same is the case with respect to Annexure-2 sworn statement of the defacto complainant. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others vs. State of Telangana and another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682]. It was then canvassed that, in order to constitute an offence under Section 498A, cruelty simplicitor is not sufficient and that cruelty has to be done with the intention to cause grave injury, or to drive the defacto complainant to commit suicide, or with an intention to coerce her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands. Such an allegation is conspicuously absent, is the contention urged. Learned counsel also relied on Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda vs. State of Gujarat [2024 KHC OnLine 6693]. 3 . Per contra, this application was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant. Learned counsel would invite the attention of this Court to the instances where specific allegations are made against the petitioners in Annexure-1 private complaint. Firstly, the end of paragraph no.6, there is a reference to all the accused persons, insofar as the misappropriation of gold ornaments are concerned. There is another allegation contained in paragraph no.10, wherein also, the accused persons are referred as a whole, wherein also misappropriation of 47.40 sovereigns of gold ornaments is alleged. Firstly, the end of paragraph no.6, there is a reference to all the accused persons, insofar as the misappropriation of gold ornaments are concerned. There is another allegation contained in paragraph no.10, wherein also, the accused persons are referred as a whole, wherein also misappropriation of 47.40 sovereigns of gold ornaments is alleged. Again, allegation is there in paragraph no.11, wherein also, the term used is ‘accused persons’ to allege that they made scathing comments against the parents of the defacto complainant, specifically alleging that the gold ornaments given at the time of marriage was quite insufficient, and demanding more money. Again in paragraph no.12, there is an allegation that there was a demand to book a separate room for accused nos. 3 & 4 (petitioners herein), when they came to the place of the defacto complainant on 04.06.2019, failing which, there was a threat as against the defacto complainant. Though such threat is alleged to have been made by accused nos. 1 & 2, the same is allegedly made on behalf of accused nos.3 & 4. Further, down in paragraph no.12, there is an allegation that accused nos.3 & 4 have given all support to the attempts of accused nos.1 & 2 to extract more amount as bribe from the defacto complainant. Coming to the sworn statement, learned counsel would submit that the allegations are referred to by the witness against the accused persons as a whole; and not individually. The same is not a reason to quash the case against the petitioners, is the final submission made by the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent. 4 . Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds considerable merit in the contentions urged in this Crl.M.C. by the petitioners. As already indicated, the petitioners are accused nos.3 & 4, who are the sister-in-law and her husband respectively of the defacto complainant. As rightly pointed out, there is no specific allegation as against the petitioners in Annexure-1 private complainant. Reference in paragraph no.6 is with respect to an allegation that the ‘accused persons’ (referring them as a whole) have taken the gold ornaments to Jalandhar for keeping it at locker therein. Similarly, the allegation contained in paragraph no.10 is to the effect that the gold ornaments were utilized for the purposes of the accused persons, again referring them as a whole. 5 . Similarly, the allegation contained in paragraph no.10 is to the effect that the gold ornaments were utilized for the purposes of the accused persons, again referring them as a whole. 5 . Coming to the allegation contained in paragraph no.11, there again, the accused persons are referred as a whole without, specifically attributing any overt act against the petitioners (accused nos.3 & 4). The allegation there is that they have spoken ill about the parents of the defacto complainant and demanded more money after accusing that the gold ornaments given at the time of the marriage was quite insufficient. Coming to the allegations in paragraph no.12, this Court notice that the allegation is made by accused nos. 1 & 2, allegedly on behalf of accused nos.3 & 4, to arrange a separate room for them when the accused persons have come to the place of the defacto complainant on 04.06.2019. Here, at the first instance, it is required to be noticed that the allegation is made by accused nos.1 & 2. Secondly, even if the allegation is presumed to be correct, the same will not constitute an offence under Section 498A. A demand for making a separate accommodation for accused nos. 3 & 4, who are the sister-in-law of the defacto complainant and her husband respectively, cannot tantamount to cruelty as defined in Section 498A. The final allegation is that accused nos.3 & 4 have given all support to the attempts of accused nos.1 & 2, is a very broad, general allegation, insufficient to constitute the offences alleged. 6 . It is settled that omnibus and vague allegations in respect of offences under Section 498A of the Penal Code is not sufficient to attract the offences. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken note of the precarious situation, where, out of vengeance and inspite arising of a marital discord, the wife uses the offence under Section 498 A as a weapon in her armory as against even the relatives of her husband. This appears to be a typical case, where such a scheme has been adopted. The petitioners are fully justified in their contention that there is no allegation, whatsoever, specifically against the petitioners (accused nos. 3 & 4). This appears to be a typical case, where such a scheme has been adopted. The petitioners are fully justified in their contention that there is no allegation, whatsoever, specifically against the petitioners (accused nos. 3 & 4). The recent judgment in Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra) is relevant in this context and paragraph no.28 thereof is extracted herein below: “The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.” 7 . The dictum laid down therein is on all fours to the fact situation therein. The same is the situation with respect to the decision relied in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda (supra), wherein, it is held in paragraph no.11 that, for an offence under Section 498A, mere allegation of cruelty simplicitor is not sufficient, unless it is done with an intention to cause grave injury, or to drive the defacto complainant to commit suicide, or with the intention to coerce her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, such necessary concomitant ingredients constituting the offence under Section 498A is conspicuously urgent. In the result, this Crl.M.C. succeeds. The same is allowed and C.C.No.1050/2023, insofar as it pertains to the petitioners (accused nos.3 & 4), will stand quashed.