Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 351 (KER)

Ashitha W/o. Rahul R. S. v. State Of Kerala

2025-02-21

C.JAYACHANDRAN

body2025
ORDER : The petitioner is the 3 rd accused in Crime No.647 of 2018, now pending as C.C No.314 of 2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Attingal. The offences alleged are under Section 498 A, read with Section 34 of Penal Code . The petitioner herein is the sister of the husband of the defacto complainant. She seeks quashment of the said crime, as also, the entire proceedings therein. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the defacto complainant (respondent no.2) and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. 3. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, apart from certain bald and vague allegations against the petitioner, there is nothing in the FIS to implicate the petitioner for offence under Section 498 A. Nor is there any such incriminating material in the statement given by the defacto complainant’s father and mother. It was pointed out that the marriage took place in the year 2010, and the defacto complainant/wife left the matrimonial home, sometime in 2013. Thereafter, she was living separately. In the year 2015, the defacto complainant left to a gulf country, whereupon her husband (petitioner’s brother) filed O.P No.879 of 2015, seeking dissolution of marriage. It is three years thereafter, that is to say, on 12/5/2018, the instant crime was registered, pursuant to the FIS preferred by the defacto complainant. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the present crime is nothing, but a counterblast to the divorce petition preferred by the husband. 4. Learned Senior would point out that the matter was, in fact, compromised earlier, for a sum of Rs.10 lakh. However, the defacto complainant’s husband could not pay the same, with the result, his property was proceeded against. The same was subsequently purchased by the defacto complainant herself, in court auction. According to the learned counsel, the present facts are squarely in the teeth of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others V. State of Telangana and another [ 2024 SCC Online SC 3682 ]. 5. This application was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent. Learned counsel would point out that, specific allegations are there in the FIS as regards demand for dowry and consequent harassment, which cannot be treated as vague or omnibus. The same allegations are repeated by the parents of the defacto complainant/wife. 5. This application was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent. Learned counsel would point out that, specific allegations are there in the FIS as regards demand for dowry and consequent harassment, which cannot be treated as vague or omnibus. The same allegations are repeated by the parents of the defacto complainant/wife. As to what was the harassment, and as regards its nature, is a matter for evidence, is the submission made by the learned counsel. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor also opposed the reliefs sought for. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds considerable force in the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel. As rightly pointed out, the solitary allegation in the FIS as against the petitioner and her mother is that, they, along with the husband, made a demand for sale of the gold ornaments given to her at the time of marriage, and harassed her physically and mentally. A further allegation is contained at the end of the first page of the F.I.S. to the effect that, for the marriage of the petitioner, there was a demand for sale of the remaining gold ornaments of the defacto complainant, and the defacto complainant was harassed by her husband, her sister in law (petitioner) and the mother in law. Barring these two general allegations, no specific allegation is there against the petitioner. It may incidentally be stated that the 2 nd accused (mother-in-law) passed away, and the case against her stands abated. 7. Coming to the statement of the defacto complainant’s mother, her allegation is that, accused nos.2 and 3 (mother of the husband and the petitioner respectively) have prompted the husband to harass the defacto complainant, seeking more dowry. The statement of the father of the defacto complainant is more or less similar to that of the defacto complainant, to the effect that the defacto complainant’s husband, mother and sister (petitioner) have physically and mentally harassed the defacto complainant, asking for more gold ornaments. 8. It is true that there is an allegation that the petitioner, her mother and her brother (husband of the defacto complainant) have harassed the defacto complainant for sale of the gold ornaments brought in by her after the marriage. 8. It is true that there is an allegation that the petitioner, her mother and her brother (husband of the defacto complainant) have harassed the defacto complainant for sale of the gold ornaments brought in by her after the marriage. There is also a specific allegation that during April 2011, there was a demand and consequent harassment by the said three persons, asking for sale of the remaining gold ornaments, in connection with the marriage of the petitioner. However, this Court finds that these allegations are quite vague and general. The specific details of any particular instance of harassment by the petitioner has not been stated by the defacto complainant in the F.I.S. There is also no reference as to the time, date, place or manner in which the alleged harassment was meted out against the defacto complainant. 9. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph no.25 that mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement, should be nipped in the bud. Generalised and sweeping accusations, unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations, cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. There was a caveat to the courts to exercise caution in such cases, to prevent misuse of legal provisions, and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment to innocent family members. In paragraph no.29, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the fact that the criminal complaint was filed as a counterblast to a petition for divorce preferred by the husband and held that the court should not encourage such a case. 10. Having considered the relevant aspects, this Court is of the opinion that the instant facts are on all fours to the judgment in Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra). Here also, the husband preferred an application for divorce in the year 2015, and the present complaint alleging offence under Section 498 A followed three years thereafter. It is relevant to note that the marriage took place in the year 2010, and the complaints preferred for the first time in the year 2018. Of course, the learned counsel for 2 nd respondent would seek to explain the delay by referring to the compromise between the parties, which, however, fell through midway. It is relevant to note that the marriage took place in the year 2010, and the complaints preferred for the first time in the year 2018. Of course, the learned counsel for 2 nd respondent would seek to explain the delay by referring to the compromise between the parties, which, however, fell through midway. The question as to whether that explanation is adequate or not, is a matter for the trial court to decide, insofar as the proceedings against the husband is concerned. This Court took stock of the above fact to see that the factual situation is more or less or similar to the one discussed in Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra) . As found by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case, the allegations herein are also very generalized, without referring to the particular involvement of the petitioner or referring to any particular instance, confined and specific to the petitioner. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. succeeds. Crime No.647/2018 and all further proceedings in C.C. No.314 of 2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Attingal, will accordingly stand quashed as against the petitioner/A3.