Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Mahajan, J
SHASHI ARORA & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
STATE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(CRL) 2711/2022
For the Respondents:Ms. Rupali Bandopadhya, ASC for the State with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advocates
Distant relatives cannot be implicated under IPC 498A without substantial evidence demonstrating encouragement of cruelty, emphasizing precision in allegations.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A and 406 - Quashing of FIR - Allegations against distant relatives - Court must exercise caution and ensure that the criminal proceedings are not a result of over-implication without proper evidence - The court ruled that the allegations against petitioners do not amount to cruelty as per Section 498A. (Paras 26-28)
(B) Inherent jurisdiction - Quashing power under Section 482 of the CrPC - Court can quash criminal proceedings if allegations are vague or lack substantive evidence - The judicial restraint is essential to avoid stifling legitimate prosecution. (Paras 16-18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused in FIR alleging harassment and cruelty under IPC, based on general and vague claims by the complainant. The petitioners claimed over-implication and challenged the validity of the FIR.
Findings of Court:
The court found no substantial evidence against the petitioners, deeming the FIR vague, thus quashing the proceedings.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the allegations against distant relatives constituted cruelty under Section 498A.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that mere casual references and vague allegations do not suffice to constitute an offence of cruelty; the intended purpose of Section 498A is to shield against serious misconduct rather than familial discord without malicious intent.
Result: FIR quashed against the petitioners.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of fir and allegations of cruelty. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 10 , 12) |
| 2. details of the allegations against the petitioners. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. caution in exercising inherent jurisdiction. (Para 16 , 18 , 26) |
| 4. definition and interpretation of cruelty under ipc. (Para 23 , 24 , 28) |
| 5. conclusion on the quashing of fir. (Para 32 , 34) |
1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 536/2022 dated 13.05.2022 registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar for offences under Sections 498A /406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’) qua the petitioners.
2. Briefly stated, the FIR was registered on a complaint given by Respondent No. 3. It is alleged that Puneet Arora (husband) and his family members including Krishnan Arora (father-in-law), Rama Arora (mother-in-law), Sakshi Arora (sister-in-law), Petitioner No. 1 (massi) and Petitioner No. 2 (daughter of Petitioner No. 1) had tortured, and assaulted Respondent No. 3 in relation to demand of dowry.
3. The marriage of Respondent No. 3 and Puneet Arora was solemnized on 09.11.2019. It is alleged that prior to her marriage, her in-laws had strictly instructed Respondent No. 3’s parents that the marriage ought to be conducted in a lavish manner, and consequently Respondent No. 3’s parents spent approximately ?30 lakhs in the marriage. It is alleged that prior to the marriage, the sagan ceremony was performed on 20.10.2019 and Respondent No. 3’s in-laws on the same day demanded a car from the parents of Respondent No. 3.
4. It is alleged that post the marriage of Respondent No. 3, her in-laws took all the sagan money for the downpayment of the car. It is alleged that at the time of her marriage, Respondent No. 3 was told that her husband was doing a garment business and was earning approximately ?3-4 lakhs per month. It is alleged that however, in the month of December, 2019, Respondent No. 3’s husband discussed about the downfall in his business with her and demanded a sum of ?5 lakh from her parents. It is alleged that thereafter, Respondent No. 3’s father arranged a sum of ?2 lakh and gave it to Respondent No. 3’s husband.
5. It is alleged that in the month of March, 2020 Respondent No. 3 and her husband were invited to dinner by her husband’s friend and that on that occasion, her husband misbehaved with her and also beat her in the presence of invitees. It is alleged that on the way home, her husband also left her on a road and did not allow her to sit inside the car.
6. It is alleged that Respondent No. 3’s mother-in-law and her sister-in-law tortured her on every occasion. It is alleged that they also refused her as well as her husband to go for regular visits to the doctor when she was pregnant. It is alleged that her husband and her in laws forced her to drink alcohol alongwith them and that they would also on some occasions forcefully put alcohol in her son’s mouth. It is alleged that when Respondent No. 3 opposed to the same, her husband used to fight with her.
7. Respondent No. 3 alleged that Petitioner No. 1, who used to live in Suraj Mal, which was situated at a distance of 10 minutes from the house of her in-laws interfered in every matter in her house. It is alleged that Petitioner No. 2 also interfered in Respondent No. 3’s life. It is alleged that Respondent No. 3’s in-laws shared each and everything that was related to Respondent No. 3 to the petitioners which included how Respondent No. 3 used to dress her child, what food she gave to her child etcetera.
8. It is alleged that Petitioner No. 1 also used to teach Respondent No. 3 not to disrespect her in-laws and also tried to influence her husband to create misunderstandings between them. It is alleged that whenever Petitioner No. 1 visited Respondent No. 3’s in-laws, she used to say to Respondent No. 3 not to throw tantrums else she would get Petitioner No.2 married with Respondent No. 3’s husband. It is also alleged that Petitioner No. 1 also complained to Respondent No. 3’s fathe
