Post covers 498A Quashing against Mother in Law & Father in Law on Complaint by wife of Husband. See on what Score FIR gets quashed.
498A Fir in Matrimonial disputes is so common when there is no specific allegation against the family members of Husband including Mother in Law & Father in Law. Moreover trend is this that everyone gets tangled in the coup including sister in law & their husband. Hardly any of the family members is left out. So let us see what legal recourse is left as far as quashing is concerned.
TOPIC- 498A Quash against Father in Law & Mother in law (Bachchan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh)
Through this analysis, the author will try to understand the section 498A of the IPC. This analysis will provide an in-depth assimilation of the extent of the power the courts enjoy in such cases. It will also highlight the importance of a marriage to have been declared null and void by a competent court. Lastly, with the help of the various cases cited in the judgement of this particular case, this analysis will explain the concept of exempting Father-in-law and Mother-in-law for cases under 498A.
Facts
Petitioners no. 1 & 2 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of complainant and petitioner no. 3 is husband of complainant (respondent no.2). Respondent no. 2 had lodged complaint on the basis of which FIR dated 30th April, 2018 in police station Mahila Thana Indore was registered relating to commission of offence under Sections 498A, 294, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC. The allegation in the FIR is that respondent no. 2 was married to petitioner no. 3 on 23/1/2014 and allegation against petitioners is in respect of demand of dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs and of harassment. On the basis of FIR, investigation has been done and challan has been filed before JMFC Indore in Case No. 23559/18 and charges have been framed against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 498A, 294, 323, 506 Part II of IPC vide order dated 29/11/2018. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that since in the reply respondent no. 2 has taken the stand that marriage is null and void therefore, provisions of Section 498A IPC will not be attracted and that in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. there is no specific allegation and respondent no. 2 is an educated lady who has falsely implicated all family members including father-in-law and mother-in-law. As against this learned counsel for respondent no. 2 opposing the prayer submits that petitioners had not disclosed that it is a second marriage and marriage subsists till it is declared null and void therefore, offence under section 498A of IPC is made out and that on account of alleged demand of dowry and harassment the FIR against the petitioners has rightly been registered. Learned counsel for State has also supported the stand of respondent no.2.
Also Read- Discharge from 498A Case Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali
Issues Involved
(a) Whether the Father-in-law and Mother-in-law of the complainant can be charged under section 498A of IPC?
Rules and Laws
- Section 498A IPC- Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
Also Read- High Court Chandigarh Quashing of FIR in Matrimonial Disputes
Deoki Panjhiyara Vs. Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad & another reported in (2013) 2 SCC 137- In the present case, if according to the respondent, the marriage between him and the appellant was void on account of the previous marriage between the appellant and Rohit Kumar Mishra the respondent ought to have obtained the necessary declaration from the competent court in view of the highly contentious questions raised by the appellant on the aforesaid score. It is only upon a declaration of nullity or annulment of the marriage between the parties by a competent court that any consideration of the question whether the parties had lived in a “relationship in the nature of marriage” would be justified. In the absence of any valid decree of nullity or the necessary declaration the court will have to proceed on the footing that the relationship between the parties is one of marriage and not in the nature of marriage. We would also like to emphasise that any determination of the validity of the marriage between the parties could have been made only by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding by and between the parties and in compliance with all other requirements of law. Mere production of a marriage certificate issued under Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 in support of the claimed first marriage of the appellant with Rohit Kumar Mishra was not sufficient for any of the courts, including the High Court, to render a complete and effective decision with regard to the marital status of the parties and that too in a collateral proceeding for maintenance. Consequently, we hold that in the present case until the invalidation of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is made by a competent court it would only be correct to proceed on the basis that the appellant continues to be the wife of the respondent so as to entitle her to claim all benefits and protection available under the DV Act, 2005.
Also Read- Guidelines for 498a cases –
- Reema Aggrawal Vs. Anupam & others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 199- The concept of “dowry” is intermittently linked with a marriage and the provisions of the Dowry Actapply in relation to marriages. If the legality of the marriage itself is an issue further legalistic problems do arise. If the validity of the marriage itself is under legal scrutiny, the demand of dowry in respect of an invalid marriage would be legally not recognizable. Even then the purpose for which Sections 498A and 304B–IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short the Evidence Act) were introduced cannot be lost sight of. Legislations enacted with some policy to curb and alleviate some public evil rampant in society and effectuate a definite public purpose or benefit positively requires to be interpreted with certain element of realism too and not merely pedantically or hyper technically. The obvious objective was to prevent harassment to a woman who enters into a marital relationship with a person and later on, becomes a victim of the greed for money. Can a person who enters into a marital arrangement be allowed to take a shelter behind a smokescreen to contend that since there was no valid marriage the question of dowry does not arise? Such legalistic niceties would destroy the purpose of the provisions. Such hairsplitting legalistic approach would encourage harassment to a woman over demand of money. The nomenclature ‘dowry’ does not have any magic charm written over it. It is just a label given to demand of money in relation to marital relationship. The legislative intent is clear from the fact that it is not only the husband but also his relations who are covered by Section 498A. Legislature has taken care of children born from invalid marriages. Section 16 of the Marriage Act deals with legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages. Can it be said that legislature which was conscious of the social stigma attached to children of void and voidable marriages closed eyes to plight of a woman who unknowingly or unconscious of the legal consequences entered into the marital relationship. If such restricted meaning is given, it would not further the legislative intent. On the contrary, it would be against the concern shown by the legislature for avoiding harassment to a woman over demand of money in relation to marriages. The first exception to Section 494 has also some relevance. According to it, the offence of bigamy will not apply to “any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction”. It would be appropriate to construe the expression ‘husband’ to cover a person who enters into marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty or coerce her in any manner or for any of the purposes enumerated in the relevant provisions Sections 304B/498A, whatever be the legitimacy of the marriage itself for the limited purpose of Sections 498A and 304B–IPC. Such an interpretation, known and recognized as purposive construction has to come into play in a case of this nature. The absence of a definition of ‘husband’ to specifically include such persons who contract marriages ostensibly and cohabitate with such woman, in the purported exercise of his role and status as ‘husband’ is no ground to exclude them from the purview of Section 304B or 498A IPC, viewed in the context of the very object and aim of the legislations introducing those provisions.
Also Read- 498A Discharge Application Rejected High Court Appeal
- Subash Babu Vs. State of A.P. And another reported in (2011) 7 SCC 616
- Praveen Choube and others Vs. State of MP and another reported in (2012) 2 MPHT 270– In the lifetime of spouse if any of them either husband or wife got married with other then by virtue of section 5(i) read with section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 such marriage could be declared to be void by the competent court in a petition filed in this regard. But unless obtaining such decree from the competent court in appropriate petition in this regard mere relying on the oral submission of any of the party at the stage of framing the charge the alleged marriage could not be held to be a void marriage. It is apparent from the facts of the case at hand that neither the applicant no. 1 nor the respondent no. 2 had filed any such petition and got such decree of divorce till today, thus in such premises, at this stage, it shall be assumed that the aforesaid alleged marriage of respondent no. 2 with applicant no. 1 is still subsisting and could not be treated to be void. At the stage of the framing of the charge the court has not to decide the validity of the alleged marriage of respondent no. 2 with applicant no. 1 but in view of their marital relation as husband and wife and available situation of the case according to which the applicant no. 1 by getting married with respondent no. 2 in accordance with the rite and and ritual of Hindu community placed the stigma on her life. Thus before recording the evidence and adjudication of the case on merits at the stage of framing the charge it could not be said that she being illegally wedded wife on her report the applicants could not be prosecuted for the offence of Section 498-A of the Code and Section 3/4 of the Act. As such till declaration of their alleged marriage void by the competent court they should be treated to be husband and wife.
- Shivcharan Lal Verma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2007) 15 SCC 369
- Nalla Thirupathi Reddy and others Vs. State of Telangana (2015) Cri.L.J. 2479
- Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2013, SC 181
- Chandralekha and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2013) 14 SC 374
Also Read- Matrimonial Disputes 498A
Findings of Court
Considering the case in the light of the aforesaid pronouncements and after minute perusal of the challan it is noticed that the main grievance of respondent no. 2 is as against petitioner no. 3 who had allegedly contracted second marriage with respondent no. 2 without disclosing the fact of earlier marriage. The allegations are mainly against petitioner no. 3 but alongwith him, the petitioners no. 1 and 2 i.e. father- in-law and mother-in-law have also been roped in. Petitioners no. 1 & 2 are aged persons and for want of any specific allegation or disclosure of precise incident against them it would be abuse of the process of law to allow their prosecution for alleged offence. Hence the M.Cr.C. is allowed in part by quashing the FIR, charge sheet as also the order framing charge in respect of petitioners no. 1 & 2 but without interfering in the prosecution of petitioner no.3.
Also Read- 498A 406 IPC Anticipatory Bail High Court Chandigarh
Conclusion
In conclusion, we can say that, in such cases where the core of the case focuses on the acts committed by the husband, the Father-in-law and the Mother-in-law, can be exempted from the case on the basis of the complaint not having enough substance to be directed towards then, and hence, the court has the right to quash Section 498A in such cases.
For case specific advice, please contact Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh best top expert lawyers.
More on 99888-17966.
