Vague accusations cannot sustain a prosecution under Section 498A IPC; specific evidence is required to avoid abuse of legal process.

ORDER

The accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.632/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against them in the aforesaid case. The allegations against the petitioners are in connection with the commission of offence under Section 498A of the IPC r/w Section 34 . 2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners, who are the father-in-law and the second wife of the father-in-law of the defacto complainant, subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty, along with the first accused, demanding more gold ornaments and money. It is stated that the defacto complainant was being subjected to cruelty, after the first accused went abroad in connection with his employment. It is alleged that the second accused (first petitioner) often harassed the defacto complainant by seeking sexual favours. As against the third accused, the allegation is that she was having an illicit relationship with the husband of the defacto complainant.

3. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that they are totally innocent, and that a false case has been foisted against them. It is further alleged that none of the offences alleged in the Final Report are brought out in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner is now no more, and hence the charge against him stood abated by his death. It is further submitted that the arguments now advanced are confined to the innocence of the second petitioner, who is the third accused in the Final Report. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the allegations levelled against the third accused, are not sufficient to fasten her with the criminal liability under Section 498A IPC .

6. On going through the First Information Statement given by the defacto complainant, it is seen that there are only vague and superficial accusations against the second petitioner herein. Though it is stated by her that the second petitioner had been serving her with juice shortly before an abortion suffered by her, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the second petitioner had added any dangerous substances in the above juice served to the defacto complainant to have her pregnancy aborted. So also, there are only vague allegations against the second petitioner in connection with the demand for bringing more ornaments and money. Another accusation levelled by the defacto complainant against the second petitioner is that she was having illicit relationship with the first accused. Apart from mere omnibus allegations in the above regard, there is nothing brought out to show that the second petitioner maintained such an amorous relationship with the husband of the defacto complainant and caused mental cruelty upon her. It is well settled that mere omnibus and superficial allegations against the in-laws cannot be the basis for criminal prosecution for the offence under Section 498A IPC . When viewed in the above perspective, the criminal prosecution launched against the second petitioner (accused No.3) has to be termed as an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the prayer in this Crl.M.C. to quash the proceedings against the second petitioner, deserves to be allowed.

In the result, the Crl.M.C. stands disposed of as follows:

The proceedings against the second petitioner (third accused) in C.C.No.632/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, which arose out of Crime No.580/2018 of Pothencode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, are hereby quashed.

sd/