New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that it is a matter of common knowledge that in matrimonial disputes exaggerated versions of the incident is reflected in a large number of complaints, therefore court has an irrecusable duty to examine whether the allegations against husband's relative, in dowry harassment cases, is an exaggerated version.
A bench comprising justices C T Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, citing the decision in Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010), said that this court had observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that in matrimonial disputes exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases.
The bench said criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned, and added, “even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of sufferings of ignominy…..”.
The bench said it is the duty of the court to see whether implication of a person who is not a close relative of the family of the husband is over implication or whether allegation against any such person is an exaggerated version, in matrimonial disputes.
“The court concerned owes an irrecusable duty to see whether such implication is over implication and/or whether the allegations against such a person is an exaggerated version”, said the bench.
The bench said court has a duty to consider the contentions that there is lack of specific allegations against the accused concerned to constitute the offences alleged against a relative or that the implication was nothing but an over implication to pressurise the family of the husband to yield to the demands. “The courts cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions," said the bench, in a judgment delivered on November 26.
The apex court quashed the 2020 FIR and the charge sheet filed against the wife of husband's cousin. The appellant used to live in Mohali, and the daughter of the complainant lived in Jalandhar after the marriage.
The bench said a petition could be filed under Section 482, CrPC for quashing the chargesheet even before framing of the charges and that it would not be in the interest of justice to reject the application merely on the ground that the accused concerned could argue legal and factual issues at the time of framing of charges.
The bench said, when relatives not residing in the same house where the alleged victim resides, the courts should not stop consideration by merely looking into the question where the accused is a person falling within the ambit of the expression ‘relative’ for the purpose of Section 498-A, IPC. The bench stressed that the court should also consider whether it is a case of over implication or exaggerated version solely to implicate such person(s) to pressurise the main accused.
The bench said the term ‘relative’ has not been defined in the statute and, therefore, it must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood, and added, “to put it shortly, it includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption”.
The bench said making the accused face the trial based on such allegations or accusation would be abuse of process of court.
The marriage between the first accused (husband) and complainant’s daughter was solemnised in February 2019. The husband left for Canada in March 2019 and his wife stayed back in her matrimonial home at Jalandhar with her in-laws. In December 2019, the wife also left for Canada. In September 2020, the husband moved before a Canadian court seeking divorce.
The complainant, the father of the wife, lodged an FIR in December 2020, alleging commission of various offences under the IPC against all the accused including the appellant and her husband.
