Jammu & Kashmir High Court: Wife Cannot Over Implicate Relative Of Husband U/S 498A IPC To Pressurize His Family To Yield To Demands

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has re-iterated that wife cannot over implicate relative of husband to pressure his family to yield to her demands.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered against the Petitioner under Sections 498-A & 420 IPC.

The single bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed, "....It is evident that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused only to pressurize him to persuade his sister, nephew and brother-in-law to hand over the jewelry/articles to the complainant/ respondent N.2. This is also admitted fact that marriage between the respondent No.2 and Kunwar Sood stands already dissolved.....The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India time and again in its numerous decisions has deprecated the practice of arraying the relatives of the husband as accused in the proceedings under Section 498-A IPC. In this context, it will be apt to take note of the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Payal Sharma vs. State of Punjab and Anr.”, 2024 INSC 896."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Sachin Gupta while the Respondent was represented by Deputy Advocate General Pawan Dev Singh.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner is the maternal uncle of the Husband of the Respondent No. 2 and upon failure of their marriage, in order to settle the dispute between Respondent No. 2 and her husband, the Petitioner participated in the reconciliation meeting that took place in the month of July 2023 in U.K. As per the claim of the Petitioner, he tried to persuade the couple to live together but after failure of the reconciliation, the couple opted to part their ways. He urged that the Respondent No. 2 participated in the whole divorce proceedings and did not make any complaint with regard to the conduct of the Petitioner, his sister, brother-in-law or nephew and the same was culminated in the divorce smoothly.

However, later the Respondent got the FIR in question registered against the Petitioner under Sections 498-A and 420 IPC registered. It was contended that a bare perusal of the complaint would reveal that if the allegations leveled in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no prudent person can arrive at the conclusion that any offence is made out against the Petitioner. It was urged that the Apex Court has time and again reiterated that the close relatives of the husband are often implicated without any rhyme or reason, and this case is a classic example of what the Hon’ble Apex Court is observing time and again.

On the other hand, the Respondent claimed that there are many instances when the Petitioner had directly provoked the in-laws of the Respondent No. 2 being the maternal uncle of her husband, which resulted in the acts of cruelty, humiliation, dowry demands, besides other acts on the parts of the petitioner, her husband and in-laws conjointly. One such incident is in respect of illegal withholding and retention of jewelry/stridhan belonging to Respondent No. 2, which at the behest of the Petitioner was denied. She alleged that the conspiracy hatched by her in-laws, husband and petitioner is self-explanatory and a triable offence. It was stated that even when the divorce decree was passed in UK, the accused persons agreed to return the valuables etc. of the Respondent No. 2 lying in UK lockers but the same have not been returned till date.

The Petitioner was managing whole of the affairs in India as the Petitioner has been nominated by the other accused persons through which high value jewelry was to be exchanged in India. The accused persons, by not returning and continuously retaining the same illegally, had the intention to cheat from the very inception itself. It was further averred that the Petitioner planned a meeting in London insisting on his presence under the guise of reconciliation, which in reality was a pre-designed plan to harass and extort money from the respondent No. 2 and her family. It was alleged that during the planned meeting, the Petitioner ensured that Respondent No. 2 and her husband were not given any opportunity for private discussion and subjected Respondent No. 2 to undue harassment regarding her medical conditions.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the false and frivolous FIR was registered against the Petitioner just because the Petitioner has been nominated for the purpose of handing over the jewelry to Respondent No. 2 but the jewelry articles are not in the custody of the Petitioner, which is admitted by the Respondent No. 2. 

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset pointed out that the Petitioner came in picture only after the relations between Respondent No. 2 and her husband had turned bad to worse, and when he participated in the reconciliation meetings. There is no specific allegation levelled against the Petitioner in the said meeting and not even the application.

"It appears that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused only because he was nominated by the other accused persons for handing over of the jewelry/articles of respondent No. 2, which are lying with the husband of respondent No. 2 and her family members in UK as claimed by Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 cannot array the Petitioner as an accused in the FIR merely because he was nominated by the other accused persons for handing over of the articles lying in UK to her in India............There is no reference to the petitioner in the impugned FIR anywhere, except in the meeting that took place in July, 2023 in United Kingdom. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the continuance of the investigation against the petitioner shall be nothing but an abuse of process of law, particularly when no allegations against the petitioner in respect of commission of offences under section 498-A and 420 IPC, have been leveled," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Sumesh Chadha vs. UT of J&K and Anr.

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Sachin Gupta, Advocate Arsha Sharma

Respondent- Deputy Advocate General Pawan Dev Singh, Senior Advocate Pranav Kohli, Advocate Radhika Wahi

Click here to read/ download Order