Misuse Of Section 498-A IPC To Settle Personal Goals: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against 15 Family Members Of Husband
The Court held that the wife had invoked Section 498-A IPC, as a tool to settle personal scores, leading to the quashing of the FIR against all family members, excluding the husband.
The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR against fifteen members of the husband’s family and the woman with whom he had an illicit relationship under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), noting that the wife had misused Section 498-A to settle personal scores. However, it held that the allegations of mental and physical ill-treatment against the husband were not vague and allowed the proceedings against him to continue.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Pravin S. Patil observed, “…in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has increased significantly and there is a greater dis-affection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as Section 498-A of IPC as an instrument to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.”
The Bench added, “It is also clear from the record that the non-applicant no.2 had filed Civil Suit for partition against the husband and other family members. The same is registered before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kelapur as Regular Civil Suit No.56/2024 and presently the same is pending. Therefore, it is clear that, non-applicant no.2/informant to settle her personal goals against husband and her relatives, trying to misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.”
The Applicants were represented by Advocate Shaikh Mohd. Rizwan, while Additional Public Prosecutor S.S. Doifode appeared for the Non-Applicants.
Brief Facts
The wife, Non-Applicant No.2, lodged a complaint, alleging that her husband, Applicant No. 1, was a businessman, who used to return home late and at times did not return at all. It was further alleged that he constantly harassed her for dowry, demanding financial assistance from her parental home, and was engaged in an illicit relationship with a woman. She further claimed that she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home after being forced to arrange for Rs. 10,00,000/- by her husband and in-laws. The allegations also included threats made by the husband and his relatives, demanding the said amount as a precondition for cohabitation. Consequently, an FIR was lodged against the husband.
Aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court for quashing of the FIR against the husband and his family members, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of an FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
It was contended by the husband that the allegations against the family members were vague and general, lacking specific details of any act committed by them. It was further submitted that the FIR was an afterthought and had been lodged as a retaliatory measure following the institution of proceedings for the restitution of conjugal rights by the husband. Further, reference was made to the wife’s pending civil suit for partition, which, according to the husband, demonstrated her ulterior motive in implicating his family members.
On the other hand, the wife contended that the allegations against the husband were grave in nature and warranted thorough investigation and trial. It was further averred that mere delay in lodging the FIR could not, by itself, be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, as the complainant had provided explanations for the delay.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that the wife had left her matrimonial home in 2018 but had approached the police only in 2024, questioning the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The Court further observed that the record clearly indicated that the wife had filed a civil suit for partition against her husband and other family members, which was registered before the Civil Judge and was presently pending.
The Court stated, “It is also clear from the record that the non-applicant no.2 had filed Civil Suit for partition against the husband and other family members. The same is registered before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kelapur as Regular Civil Suit No.56/2024 and presently the same is pending. Therefore, it is clear that, non-applicant no.2/informant to settle her personal goals against husband and her relatives, trying to misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.”
The Bench noted that the allegations leveled against the family members of the husband were vague and further, did not specifically state the kind of harassment the wife was subjected to at their hands, and would not attract offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.
The Court referred to Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) and Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (2012), where the Supreme Court observed that Section 498-A IPC was enacted to prevent cruelty but is increasingly misused in matrimonial disputes to settle personal scores against the husband and his family.
The Court further observed that the record contained no allegations of threats or harm to the informant or her reputation by the husband's family members, and thus, no offence under Section 506 IPC was made out against them.
“In the circumstances, applicant no.2 to 17 cannot be allowed to be prosecuted for the offence under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Continuation of criminal proceeding against the family members, according to us, is an abuse of process of law”, the Bench added.
Consequently, the Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR filed against fifteen family members of the husband as well as the woman with whom he had an illicit relationship. However, the Court held that the allegation against the husband, regarding mental and physical ill-treatment, could not be considered vague, therefore, the proceedings against him could continue.
Cause Title: xyz & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:3192-DB)
Appearance:
Applicants: Advocate Shaikh Mohd. Rizwan
Non-Applicants: Additional Public Prosecutor S.S. Doifode; Advocate Vijay Hamand
