The Calcutta High Court has dismissed cases filed by a wife against her husband and in-laws, in which they were accused of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC and various provisions of the SC/ST Act and Juvenile Justice Act.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held: “The opposite party no. 2 is an educated and earning woman, and the routine expectations of contributing towards household expenses, making online purchases during the Covid-19 lockdown, or being asked to feed the child by the mother-in-law, cannot, by any stretch, constitute “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. Likewise, payment of EMIs for a jointly acquired apartment, or the father taking the child outside, are not unusual incidents of domestic life. Where no specific role is attributed to any accused, and allegations lack particulars as to date, time, or manner of commission of offence, continuation of criminal proceedings would operate as prejudice and oppression against the accused.”
Background
The opposite party no. 2 filed a written complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Patuli Police Station, stating that she was married to petitioner no. 2 and had a daughter with him. She alleged that from the start of their marriage, she found her husband incompatible and that her in-laws verbally abused her, mocking her for belonging to a ‘lower caste.’
She stated that after moving to a new house with her husband, she was assaulted by him, and he even attempted to strangle her. She also alleged that her mother-in-law forced her to feed the child even when she was not hungry.
It was further claimed that the petitioners subjected her to physical, sexual, verbal, economic, and emotional abuse. They allegedly made unlawful dowry demands and pressured her to pay the monthly instalments/EMIs for the loan taken to purchase the apartment.
It was alleged that petitioner No. 2 strangled opposite party No. 2 and also physically assaulted the child, causing her to suffer mental trauma.
Following this complaint, Patuli P.S. Case No. 52/2022 dated 15.03.2022 was registered under Sections 498A, 406, 506, and 34 of the IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 read with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Section 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The petitioners argued that upon receiving the charge sheet, the Judge took cognizance of the offences mechanically, without considering the materials on record or complying with the mandatory legal requirements. They maintain their innocence, asserting that the allegations are entirely false, frivolous, and fabricated, filed solely to harass them for ulterior motives.
It was further submitted that the allegations are vague, and neither the FIR nor the charge sheet fulfills the essential legal ingredients against the petitioners. The case is based on a concocted story and should be quashed to prevent misuse of the law.
Additionally, it was contended that for invoking Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, it is not enough that the victim belongs to an SC or ST community; the offence must involve public humiliation by the accused, which did not occur in this instance.
Counsel for opposite party no. 2/complainant opposed the petition, stating that the complaint filed on 15 March 2022 clearly detailed cognizable offences by the petitioners. It was alleged that the complainant faced physical and mental cruelty, misappropriation of her stridhan, dowry demands, an attempted strangulation, and threats of serious harm. Additionally, it was claimed that her husband and in-laws subjected her minor child to cruelty and intentionally humiliated her in public.
Findings
Upon hearing the parties, the court observed that the wife had made various allegations in her written complaint dating back to the start of her marriage, but she did not specify any time or place.
From the complaint, the court noted only two specific dates: first, 14.07.2017, when P-2 allegedly assaulted OP-2, causing severe injuries for which she received treatment at the Army hospital; and second, in November 2020, when petitioner no. 2 allegedly had an altercation with OP-2 and also injured her daughter.
However, the court observed that she failed to provide any injury reports or treatment records from the Army hospital or any other medical facility during the investigation. No medical evidence was found to support the allegation of strangulation.
The court also noted that she did not attribute any specific offence to a particular person, and the investigation did not reveal even a prima facie case of physical or mental torture for non-fulfillment of dowry demands, or any entrustment or misappropriation of stridhan articles by petitioner no. 1 or the other accused.
It was further observed that Section 406 of the IPC did not apply since all relevant articles were seized from the accused during the investigation. Likewise, Section 506 of the IPC was not attracted, as no reliable allegations were made under this section. Additionally, the comments that allegedly aggrieved the wife were made by the mother-in-law inside the house, not in public, and therefore did not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act.
The court further observed that independent witnesses did not support OP-2’s allegations of quarrels, shouting, or breaking doors. A review of the case diary revealed no material to substantiate claims of humiliation or any offence attracting Section 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
It was also noted that OP-2 had voluntarily married the petitioner following a love relationship, and her current portrayal of him as cruel or unsupportive was unsustainable, the court stated.
“It is significant to note that from 2011 until 2022, no complaint was lodged before any authority or police station, notwithstanding her claim that cruelty had been inflicted upon her from the inception of the marriage. She has not specified when such alleged cruelty actually began…the law requires that allegations be clear, specific, and supported with particulars; otherwise, fixing criminal liability becomes wholly unsustainable.
A neighbour living on the 2nd floor of the same building stated under Section 161 CrPC that although the petitioners and opposite party no. 2 resided on the 3rd floor, he neither heard any quarrels nor witnessed any assaults. He also did not observe any discord in their married life.
As a result, the court quashed the proceedings in Special Case No. 9/2022, arising from Patuli P.S. Case No. 52/2022 dated 15.03.2022, registered under Sections 498A, 406, 506, and 34 of the IPC, read with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Section 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in favour of the petitioners.