Supreme Court said it has no hesitation in holding there is nothing on record to suggest offences
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court has cautioned lower courts to ensure that distant relatives of husbands are not unnecessarily implicated in criminal cases filed at the instance of wives, alleging domestic cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal dismissed a first information report (FIR) against the cousin brother of the accused husband and the wife of the said cousin who were named as accused in the FIR filed by the wife’s father.
The petitioner had approached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to quash the case against him. Criticising the high court’s decision, the Supreme Court said that the high court is duty bound to examine whether the allegation against the distant relatives of the husband was exaggerated.
A petition can be filed under Section 482 of the CrPC for dismissing a chargesheet even before framing of charges – and it would not be in the interest of justice to dismiss the application merely on the ground that the accused can argue legal and factual issues at the time of framing of charges, the Supreme Court said.
The bench said the term “relative” has not been defined in law, and so it has to be given a meaning as is generally understood.
In general, it can include any person’s father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew, niece, grandson or granddaughter or spouse of a person.
After considering the FIR and final report and the material, the bench said that it has no hesitation in holding that there is nothing on record to suggest that they constitute the offences alleged against the accused.
“To make the accused face trial on the basis of such allegations or indictment would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court,” the Supreme Court said.
Relying on a 2010 judgment, the bench said it has no hesitation in holding that the observation of the court was in fact a warning against non-discharge of duty in such matrimonial disputes, whether it is an exaggeration to implicate a person who is not a close relative of the husband’s family or whether the allegation against such a person is exaggerated.
In this case, the first accused, Amit Sharma, and Vandana Sharma got married in February 2019. In March the same year, Amit Shama went to Canada and Vandana Sharma remained in her matrimonial home in Jalandhar with her in-laws.
In December 2019, Vandana Sharma also went to Canada, and in September 2020 Amit Sharma approached the family court of Canada to file for divorce.
In December the same year, an FIR was filed by Vandana’s father, in which all the accused, including the petitioner and her husband were charged with various offences.
