In-laws as passive spectators; not enough to rope them in 'cruelty’ FIR, says Bombay high court

Mumbai: The Bombay high court has quashed a criminal case and proceedings against the in-laws of a woman, observing that to not react, or a refusal to actively take sides of daughter-in-law or being a passive spectator, cannot be the basis to invoke the law for offence of “cruelty to wife”.“A parent or relative, caug-ht between the crossfire of allegations by and between two adults in a relationship of marriage, and who chooses to remain quiet, cannot be roped in an offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code,’’ said Justice R R Bhonsale in a May 8 judgment.The offence of cruelty to wife attracts up to three years’ imprisonment. The cruelty has to be a wilful act intended to drive a woman to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to life, limb or health, as envisaged under IPC Section 498A and none other, the HC observed. As said by Supreme Court, “pragmatic realities’’ must be factored in when dealing with matrimonial disputes, the HC noted.In July 2022, police registered an FIR invoking IPC Section 498A after a 26-year-old woman, within six months of marriage, filed a complaint against her 31-year-old husband, his parents, brother and sister. The FIR alleged ill-treatment, abuse, and assault by her husband and in-laws, not being allowed her phone over doubts raised by husband, not being allowed to visit her parents, forced to do all domestic chores, forced to watch adult content by her husband, and her in-laws keeping all her gold ornaments when she decided to leave the marital home.Her husband and in-laws petitioned the HC for quashing the FIR. Their lawyer, on instructions, did not press for any relief for husband, but only for the in-laws arguing that the case against them was vague. The wife’s lawyer said it was the husband’s second marriage and in 2021, a similar cruelty case filed by his first wife was dropped only after a compromise.The HC on hearing all lawyers, including for the wife and state, said the allegations against the in-laws were “bald, sweeping allegations which are unsupported by credible material and cannot be the basis to invoke the provisions of IPC Section 498A”.Against the in-laws, “what is alleged are some disagreements or a difference in a point of view in the normal course of living as a family’’, Justice Bhonsale held, while quashing the FIR against four as a “sheer abuse and misuse’’ of legal process to rope in husband’s kin in “vague and omnibus allegations”.The HC directed that the criminal case against the husband would continue.The judgment cited various SC rulings on the law. One of the SC rulings had noted, “We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the family who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged incident of harassment, which... cannot by itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality.’’WHAT THE HC SAID: One needs to be extremely cautious, act with care, and consider ground realities which prima facie emerge. As observed by the Supreme Court, on many occasions allegations are made against relatives close and distant, who live in different cities, sometimes abroad and who visit or meet the parties on rare occasions, at weddings or social/festive gatherings. Such cases, have a different intent, motive and objective. In some cases, for various reasons, allegations of section 498A IPC are made immediately or shortly after the marriage and criminal prosecutions initiated. Such cases, require more scrutiny and are to be handled with greater care and caution. Generally, relatives are accused, based on general, vague and omnibus allegation, without any details of specific instances of their involvement in the alleged crime.