Vague and generalized allegations in matrimonial disputes cannot substantiate prosecution under Sections 498-A, 323, and 504 IPC; specificity is required to prevent misuse of legal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken for final disposal.

2. Present applicants who are charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 4 98-A, 323 and 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act have questioned the registration of the offence before this Court on the ground that all the allegations levelled by non-applicant no.2 are out of frustration and to entangle all family members in the web of crime. Hence it is prayed that such vexatious complaint, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and non-applicant no.2 strongly opposed the application. According to them, allegations raised by non-applicant no.2 against applicants prima facie constitute the offence and therefore, offence registered against applicants cannot be set aside at this stage of matter.

4. Bare perusal of complaint lodged against the present applicants, it is clear that in respect of applicant nos.2 to 4, she has alleged that they used to taunt her and instigate her husband to cause physical harassment to her. However, in support of her submissions no details such as date, place, time and particulars of any instances are quoted in police complaint.

5. It is also alleged by non-applicant no.2 that in social media, one message/post was circulated against her by applicants. But no details of said post are given in her complaint. Then she alleged that in the marriage of her brother-in-law, she was insulted by the applicants. But again in what manner she was insulted, there are no particulars mentioned in her police complaint. Therefore, only conclusion can be drawn from the allegation of the non-applicant no.2 that they are vague and omnibus.

6. It is stated that, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of the cases has held that, for attracting the offence under Section 498-A, the complainant should state specific details such as time, date, place and nature of harassment caused. On the basis of generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. It is also observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in recent years, it is found that there is a tendency in a matrimonial matter to implicate all the family members of husband without making any allegation and attributing any role to them. Hence, Court must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana & another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically observed in this matter as under:

15. An offence is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC when a husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty, which may result in imprisonment for a term extending up to three years and a fine. The Explanation under Section 498A of the IPC defines “cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC to mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b). The first limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that “cruelty” means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that cruelty means any wilful conduct