Police can’t be used to harass in-laws in marriage disputes, says Cal High Court
Kolkata: Observing that criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes cannot be used as a means to pressurise a spouse, the Calcutta High Court has held that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be applied mechanically in every case of alleged cruelty.
The bench of Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das quashed criminal proceedings against a married sister-in-law, holding that the complaint contained only general and omnibus allegations against her without specific supporting material.
The court observed that the police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort in genuine cases of cruelty and harassment and cannot be utilised to “hold the husband at ransom” or to settle matrimonial disputes.
The case arose from a complaint lodged in July 2017 by a woman against her husband and his relatives, alleging dowry demands, mental and physical torture, and assault during pregnancy. She claimed that in June 2015 her mother-in-law and sister-in-law administered wrong medicine, causing convulsions and bleeding. She also alleged that in March 2016 she was assaulted, including being kicked in the abdomen.
After investigation, police filed a chargesheet invoking provisions relating to cruelty by husband or relatives, criminal breach of trust, grievous hurt and attempt to commit culpable homicide. A sessions court rejected the discharge plea of the married sister-in-law and another relative. Examining the complaint, case diary and medical documents, the High Court noted that the prescription dated July 6, 2015 did not record any opinion regarding wrongful administration of medicine as alleged. A certificate issued more than a year later narrated the history stated by the complainant, but the court found no contemporaneous material supporting the specific accusation against the sister-in-law.
Holding that mere naming of relatives without concrete material may amount to abuse of process, the court discharged the married sister-in-law and quashed proceedings against her, while directing that the trial continue against the other accused, against whom specific allegations were prima facie supported by medical records.
