IMPORTANT POINT
Vague and omnibus allegations are insufficient to establish an offence under Section 498A of the IPC; specific allegations must be present to avoid misuse of legal provisions.

ORDER :

(C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.)

The petitioners are accused nos.3 & 4 in C.C.No.1050/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Haripad. The offences alleged are under Sections 498 A, 406 and 323, read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case was registered pursuant to a complaint preferred by the defacto complainant/wife, wherein sworn statement was recorded, and the Court chose to proceed against the accused persons.

2. The ground canvassed by the petitioners (accused nos.3 & 4) is that, there is no specific allegation, against them, except certain vague allegations. In order to constitute the offence under Section 498A, such vague and omnibus allegations are not sufficient, as settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to Annexure-1 complaint, to point out that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners (Accused nos.3 & 4). The same is the case with respect to Annexure-2 sworn statement of the defacto complainant. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others vs. State of Telangana and another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682]. It was then canvassed that, in order to constitute an offence under Section 498A, cruelty simplicitor is not sufficient and that cruelty has to be done with the intention to cause grave injury, or to drive the defacto complainant to commit suicide, or with an intention to coerce her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands. Such an allegation is conspicuously absent, is the contention urged. Learned counsel also relied on Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda vs. State of Gujarat [2024 KHC OnLine 6693].

3. Per contra, this application was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant. Learned counsel would invite the attention of this Court to the instances where specific allegations are made against the petitioners in Annexure-1 private complaint. Firstly, the end of paragraph no.6, there is a reference to all the accused persons, insofar as the misappropriation of gold ornaments are concerned. There is another allegation contained in paragraph no.10, wherein also, the accused persons are referred as a whole, wherein also misappropriation of 47.40 sovereigns of gold ornaments is alleged. Again, allegation is there in paragraph no.11, wherein also, the term used is ‘accused persons’ to allege that they made scathing comments against the parents of the defacto complainant, specifically alleging that the gold ornaments given at the time of marriage was quite insufficient, and demanding more money. Again in paragraph no.12, there is an allegation that there was a demand to book a separate room for accused nos. 3 & 4 (petitioners herein), when they came to the place of the defacto complainant on 04.06.2019, failing which, there was a threat as against the defacto complainant. Though such threat is alleged to have been made by accused nos. 1 & 2, the same is allegedly made on behalf of accused nos.3 & 4. Further, down in paragraph no.12, there is an allegation that accused nos.3 & 4 have given all support to the attempts of accused nos.1 & 2 to extract more amount as bribe from the defacto complainant. Coming to the sworn statement, learned counsel would submit that the allegations are referred to by the witness against the accused persons as a whole; and not individually. The same is not a reason to quash the case against the petitioners, is the final submission made by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds considerable merit in the contentions urged in this Crl.M.C. by the petitioners. As already indicated, the petitioners are accused nos.3 & 4, who are the sister-in-law and her husband respectively of the defacto complainant. As rightly pointed out, there is no sp