Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into 498A Case Without Specific Allegations, Supreme Court Quashes Proceedings

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard an appeal against the High Court's order which had disposed of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a summoning order dated 23.04.2018 in Complaint Case No. 2789 of 2015. The appeal arose from an SLP (Crl.) challenging summons issued under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against five relatives of the husband who contended that they were named without specific allegations.

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the complaint against the appellants, holding that they were "unnecessarily been roped in" without particularised allegations linking them to cruelty or dowry offences. The Court observed that most allegations related to the husband and that the only specific reference to the relatives related to an incident dated 16.08.2015 which took place after an ex-parte decree of divorce had already been passed. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Having examined the allegations in the present case vis-à-vis the law settled by this Court in Geeta Mehrotra (supra) & Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra), we have no hesitation in holding that the present appellants have unnecessarily been roped in the complaint without there being any specific allegation against them for any incident which had taken place between the husband and the wife during subsistence of marriage and the period when they stayed together at Kota. As a matter of fact, the complaint is largely devoted to the ill-treatment committed by the husband and the only reference to the appellants is made for the incident dated 16.08.2015 at her own house at NOIDA. However, by that time, the ex-parte decree of divorce has already been passed. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered view that allowing the trial to proceed against the appellants shall amount to vexatious trial only for the reason that they are relatives of the husband. Accordingly, we quash the Complaint Case No. 2789 of 2015 against the appellants. The appeal stands allowed.” The Court relied on its precedents cautioning against indiscriminate inclusion of family members in matrimonial criminal complaints.

Background The dispute arose from a marriage solemnised on 17.06.2010 between Kumar Saurabh and respondent no.2 (Charusmita). The couple lived briefly in Varanasi and then in Kota; the wife left the matrimonial home in October 2010 with her possessions. Kumar Saurabh filed a divorce petition in Family Court, Kota (Case No. 476 of 2011), which resulted in an ex-parte decree dated 31.05.2012. About three years later the wife moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar; the application was treated as a complaint and, after recording statements, the learned Magistrate issued summons on 23.04.2018 against the husband and five of his relatives (mother, brother, sister-in-law, elder brother and sister) under Section 498A IPC and other provisions.

The appellants contended that no specific allegations were levelled against them and that they were implicated merely for being relatives of the husband. The High Court dismissed the quashing petition without deciding it on merits. The Supreme Court examined the complaint and found that, save for bald statements, the material related to ill-treatment by the husband; the only incident implicating the relatives was alleged to have occurred on 16.08.2015 at the complainant's house after the divorce decree. The Court followed earlier decisions including Geeta Mehrotra and Dara Lakshmi Narayana, noting that "neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants" when allegations against relatives were generalised. The Court concluded that continuing prosecution would amount to vexatious trial and quashed Complaint Case No. 2789 of 2015 against the appellants.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 505 Case Title: Sushila & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Counsel not indicated in the judgment