QUASHING OF 498A CASE

Supreme Court Quashes 498-A Proceedings Against In-Laws: Kamal & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Introduction:

In a significant judgment passed in the case of Kamal & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., SLP (Crl.) 9167/2024, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its cautious approach in matrimonial disputes, especially concerning the prosecution of in-laws under Section 498-A IPC. The Court, while partly allowing the appeal, quashed the criminal proceedings against the parents-in-law, holding that their continuance would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.

Background of the Case:

The case arose out of an FIR (C.R. No. I-163 of 2019) registered at Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad, alleging offences under Sections 498-A and 114 IPC against the husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law of the complainant (second respondent). The husband had filed for divorce on 15.05.2019, and shortly after receiving the summons on 17.07.2019, the complainant lodged the impugned FIR on 20.07.2019.

The appellants sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C before the Gujarat High Court, which dismissed their petition, leading to the present Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Analysis:

The Court, speaking through Justices Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan, closely examined the allegations made in the FIR. The key observations included:

• The FIR disclosed that after the marriage in 2005, the complainant stayed separately at different rented accommodations and was employed since 2008.

• The primary grievance against the husband related to his alleged affair and physical and mental cruelty.

• As against the parents-in-law, the allegations were limited to extending taunts and withholding the complainant’s salary for household expenses, with no specific instances detailed.

• Crucially, the FIR was filed immediately after the complainant was served with divorce summons, suggesting a retaliatory motive.

The Court emphasized that:

"A few taunts here and there are a part of everyday life which, for the happiness of the family, are usually ignored."

It noted that even the complainant’s own parents had counseled her to exercise patience rather than escalate the dispute.

In matrimonial disputes, particularly where complaints are lodged after many years of marriage and immediately following divorce proceedings, the Court held that it must be circumspect in taking allegations at face value. There must be an examination of potential mala fide intent.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded:

• The proceedings against the parents-in-law (second and third appellants) were quashed, and no prima facie case against them was found.

• The proceedings against the husband (first appellant) would continue, as specific allegations of physical and mental cruelty were leveled against him. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed.

Ramification:

The decision in Kamal & Ors. Serves as a reaffirmation of the judiciary’s duty to prevent the misuse of criminal proceedings in family disputes. It balances the rights of genuine victims of domestic violence while safeguarding innocent family members from harassment through baseless litigation.