Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Supreme Court
Incident Happened After Relationship Of Husband & Wife Came To End: Supreme Court Quashes Case Registered U/S. 498A IPC Against Man’s Relatives
|The husband's relatives had approached the Apex Court challenging the impugned order whereby the High Court had disposed of the prayer for quashing of the summoning order issued under the IPC & Dowry Prohibition Act without deciding the quashing petition on merits.
The Supreme Court has quashed a criminal complaint registered against the relatives of the husband under the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act after noting that the incident complained of took place after the divorce decree was passed and the relationship of husband and wife had come to an end by then.
The appellants approached the Apex Court challenging the impugned order whereby the High Court had disposed of the appellants’ prayer for quashing of the summoning order issued by the Trial Court in a case registered under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Pernal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 without deciding the quashing petition on merits.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra asserted, “Even if such an incident has happened on 16.08.2015, the fact remains that on the said date the relationship of husband and wife has already come to an end as such the appellants being relatives of the husband cannot be proceeded for offence under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.”
Advocate Bibek Tripathi represented the Appellants while AOR Garvesh Kabra represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellants are the relatives of the husband of the second respondent-complainant. The couple got married in the year 2010, and after the marriage, they lived in Kota (Rajasthan) for a brief period before she left the matrimonial home in October 201,0 taking away all her possessions, including stridhan and started living with her parents.
The husband filed the divorce petition after efforts made by him to bring back the respondent-wife to resume matrimonial life were not successful. An ex parte divorce decree was passed. However, after 3 years, the respondent-wife made an application under Section 156(3) CrPC for registration of a criminal case. The Magistrate issued a summoning order against the appellants under Section 498A IPC. Being aggrieved, the appellants approached the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the summoning order, which was dismissed vide the impugned order.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that it was alleged by the complainant wife that in the year 2015, the appellants came to her house at Kota and demanded dowry by threatening and ill-treating her. It was also alleged that they snatched her Mangalsutra and ran away. As per the Bench, there was no reason or justification as to why the appellants would try for a reconciliation by visiting the house of the complainant when the divorce had already taken place by an earlier order in 2012. Moreover, on the said date of the alleged incident, the relationship of husband and wife had already come to an end.
Reference was made to the judgment in Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2012) whereby the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of involving the relatives of the husband for the offence under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Bench thus held that the present appellants have unnecessarily been roped in the complaint without there being any specific allegation against them for any incident which had taken place between the husband and the wife during the subsistence of marriage and the period when they stayed together at Kota. It was noticed that the complaint is largely devoted to the ill-treatment committed by the husband, and the only reference to the appellants is made for the incident in 2015 at her own house. However, by that time, the ex-parte decree of divorce had already been passed.
The Bench held that allowing the trial to proceed against the appellants shall amount to a vexatious trial only for the reason that they are relatives of the husband. Thus, the Bench allowed the appeal and quashed the Complaint Case against the appellants.
Cause Title: Sushila & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 505)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocate Bibek Tripathi, AOR P. V. Yogeswaran, Advocate Y. Lokesh
Respondents: AOR Garvesh Kabra, Advocates Vikash Bansal, Pooja Kabra, Nikita Jaju