Criminal Law Cannot Be Set In Motion Against Every Husband’s Relative Merely Due To Matrimonial Discord: Madras High Court Quashes Case U/S 498A IPC Against In-Laws

while partly allowing a petition filed by the accused persons, the Bench held that expressions such as relatives “supported” the husband or caused “mental cruelty” are insufficient to attract criminal liability. The Court observed that criminal prosecution cannot be continued merely on the basis of relationship with the husband.

Justice L. Victoria Gowri observed, “The mere use of expressions such as ‘supported him’ or ‘in-laws caused mental cruelty’ cannot by itself constitute an offence under Section 498-A IPC. Criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to proceed on the basis of relationship alone. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 498-A IPC deserve to be quashed insofar as petitioners 2 to 7 and 10 are concerned”.

“The criminal process must remain a shield for the genuinely aggrieved and not become a sword for collateral vengeance. Matrimonial discord, when translated into criminal prosecution, must be examined with judicial sensitivity. The Court must ensure that the grievance of the wife is not silenced at the threshold when it discloses a triable case. At the same time, the Court must also ensure that relatives, whose alleged role is only described in sweeping and ornamental language, are not condemned to the long corridor of criminal trial merely because of their relationship with the husband”, the Bench further noted.

Advocate K. Gurunathan appeared for the petitioners and B. Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate appeared for the respondent.

The Court, however, refused to quash proceedings against the husband, holding that the allegations against him were specific and included instances of alleged assault, abuse, seizure of the complainant’s mobile phone and demand for its password. The Bench observed that the truthfulness of these allegations could only be examined during trial.

“Matrimonial prosecutions often present before the Court a difficult intersection between the legitimate cry of an aggrieved wife and the equally serious possibility of over-implication of every person standing within the relational circumference of the husband. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is not intended either to conduct a mini trial or to stifle a genuine prosecution at its threshold. Equally, it is a constitutional safety valve against compelling persons to face the rigour of criminal trial when the allegations, even if accepted as they stand, do not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged against them”, the Bench said.

Rejecting the argument that the complaint was filed after an unexplained delay of nearly 80 days, the Court observed that delay in matrimonial offences cannot always be viewed with the same strictness as other criminal cases.

The Bench noted that a woman in a matrimonial relationship may attempt reconciliation before approaching the police, and therefore delay by itself cannot become a ground to terminate prosecution against the husband.

However, the Court held that delay assumes significance when allegations against distant relatives are vague and lack specific details. In the present case, the absence of individual allegations against the husband’s relatives, coupled with the delay, supported quashing of proceedings against them.

The Court emphasised that while genuine grievances of a wife must be protected, criminal proceedings should not be used to compel relatives to face trial merely because of their relationship with the accused husband.

The proceedings under Section 498A IPC against accused Nos. 2 to 7 and 10 were accordingly quashed, while the criminal case against the husband was allowed to continue before the trial court.

Cause Title: X & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

Appearances:

Petitioner: K. Gurunathan, Advocates.

Respondent: B. Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl. side), S. Sundarapandian, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment