New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR in a matrimonial dispute, ruling that the allegations of cruelty and breach of trust were “vague, omnibus, and generic” and amounted to an abuse of law.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna allowed a plea filed by a husband and his father seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Hauz Khas police station under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the basis of a complaint lodged by the wife.
The Delhi High Court observed that even if the allegations in the complaint were accepted at face value, they did not satisfy the statutory ingredients of “cruelty” as defined under Section 498A IPC.
“These allegations at best reflect ordinary matrimonial discord, not criminal cruelty,” Justice Krishna observed, adding that there were no specific instances of conduct “of such gravity as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury to life, limb or health”.
The order stated that the complaint lacked particulars such as dates, times and specific roles attributed to each accused. “The allegations in the complaint herein are vague, omnibus and generic, with no specific dates, times or particulars of alleged incidents,” the Delhi High Court said.
Referring to the findings recorded earlier in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Justice Krishna highlighted that the trial court had already disbelieved most of the wife’s allegations against the in-laws. Those findings, the order said, assumed significance while examining the sustainability of criminal proceedings under Section 498A, where the standard of proof is much higher.
“The same allegations are recycled in criminal proceedings, where the standard of proof is even higher i.e. beyond reasonable doubt,” the judge observed. On the charge under Section 406 IPC relating to alleged misappropriation of jewellery, Justice Krishna found that there was no prima facie material to show entrustment or dishonest retention by the husband or father-in-law.
“There is not even a whisper in the complaint suggesting that either of these petitioners (the husband and father-in-law) had any custody, control or dominion over the complainant’s jewellery,” the order said.
The Delhi High Court observed that the FIR had been lodged after an unexplained delay of several years and appeared to be a pressure tactic in the backdrop of ongoing matrimonial and civil disputes. “This delayed filing of FIR clearly indicates that the FIR was registered as a pressure tactic in the ongoing matrimonial dispute, rather than to seek redress for alleged cruelty,” Justice Krishna observed.
Ruling that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to misuse of the criminal justice system, the Delhi High Court concluded that the case fell squarely within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court for quashing of an offence like cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
“In light of the above findings, it is concluded that it is clearly a case which comes in the category of abuse of the process of law,” Justice Krishna said, while quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
(IANS)
