7-year delay, no evidence, only allegations: Why Supreme Court quashed 498A case against in-laws

The Court pointed out that there is no use of criminal law in situations where unfounded accusations are raised. (AI image)

In a significant ruling addressing the evidentiary threshold in matrimonial prosecutions, the Supreme Court of India quashed criminal proceedings against the sister-in-law and parents-in-law of a complainant, holding that vague and omnibus allegations, unsupported by material evidence and coupled with unexplained delay, cannot sustain prosecution.A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order and held that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law.Background of the CaseThe matter arose from FIR No. 758/2023 registered at Police Station Mohammadi, District Khiri, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 498A, 323 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.The complainant alleged that after her marriage on 16.04.2017, she was subjected to continuous harassment and unlawful dowry demands of Rs.8.5 lakhs and a car by her husband and his family members, including the present appellants. It was alleged that due to the inability of her family to meet such demands, she was subjected to cruelty.The complainant further claimed that within a few months of marriage, when she was pregnant, the accused persons assaulted her. According to her, the sister-in-law and mother-in-law restrained her, while her husband kicked her on the stomach, causing her to become unconscious and suffer a miscarriage.Additional allegations were made regarding continued harassment, including that the sister-in-law instigated the husband against her by making allegations of illicit relationship, and that during a visit to Kanpur, the father-in-law engaged in inappropriate conduct by holding her hand and behaving indecently.It was also claimed that on 12.11.2023, the husband along with the appellants assaulted her, forcibly took away her jewellery, and compelled her to leave the matrimonial home.On these allegations, the FIR came to be registered. The High Court declined to quash the FIR, observing that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences, including serious allegations of forced miscarriage and sexual misconduct.Submissions Before the Supreme CourtIt was argued on behalf of the appellants that the charges were vague and omnibus, and lacked any material particulars. It was submitted that the sister-in-law lived separately and was a qualified professional, while the parents-in-law were elderly individuals aged about 73 and 71 years respectively, residing separately in Kanpur.It was further submitted that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of more than six years and seven months from the date of marriage, and no prior complaint had ever been made. The appellants argued that the allegation regarding miscarriage was not supported by any medical evidence and had in fact been dropped during investigation.It was also argued that the proceedings were a misuse of criminal law to harass family members, and that continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process.On the other hand, the State supported the High Court’s order and argued that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested during trial. It was submitted that at the stage of quashing, the Court ought not to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence.Notably, the complainant failed to appear before the Supreme Court, even after the notice was served.At the outset, the Court clarified that the husband was not before it and therefore the allegations could only be examined qua the sister-in-law and parents-in-law. The Court emphasized that their role could not be assessed collectively and must be independently scrutinized based on material on record.Dowry Allegations: Lack of Supporting MaterialThe Court found that the allegations of dowry demand and cruelty were not supported by any material evidence.Rejecting the sufficiency of mere assertions, the Court held:“A mere statement stating that the accused/appellants herein frequently demanded dowry and harassed the complainant for the same is not sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings against them when the same are not corroborated or bolstered by other materials placed on record.”The Court pointed out that there is no use of criminal law in situations where unfounded accusations are raised, especially in family conflicts where one would wish to implicate more than two family members.Delay of Over 7 Years: A Critical FactorA crucial aspect that weighed heavily with the Court was the delay of more than six years and seven months in lodging the FIR. The explanation that the father-in-law was a reputed advocate was found to be inadequate, as no specific instances of threat or coercion were pleaded.The Court observed:“The prosecution has failed to put forth any sufficient cause for such delay and this casts aspersions on their story.”The Court further stressed the importance of timely recourse to law and observed:“vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt meaning, law protects those who are vigilant about their rights.”The Court also noted that delay assumes greater significance in matrimonial disputes where evidence is already limited and largely dependent on personal testimony.Allegation of Miscarriage Not SubstantiatedOn the allegation that the complainant was assaulted during pregnancy leading to miscarriage, the Court noted that the charge under Section 313 IPC had been dropped in the chargesheet.The Court found that the medical report did not support the allegation and observed:“The attached medical examination report fails to ascribe or delineate any particular injury that relates to or supports the claim of the complainant.”In light of the absence of medical evidence and the dropping of the charge, the Court found that the allegation was not substantiated.The Court further found that the allegations against the sister-in-law, particularly regarding instigation and interference in the matrimonial relationship, were vague and lacked specific details.Referring to its earlier decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, the Court reiterated:“Merely stating certain vague and omnibus allegations without any cogent material evidence to support the same should not become a fillip to jump-start the criminal machinery of the State.”The Court cautioned against the tendency to implicate all relatives in matrimonial disputes without specific allegations.On the allegation of sexual misconduct under Section 354 IPC, the Court found that neither the FIR nor the chargesheet contained specific particulars. The Court observed that the allegation was limited to a general assertion that the father-in-law held the complainant’s hand and engaged in inappropriate conduct, without elaboration.It held:“No such specific allegation or any specific instance has been stated either in the FIR or in the chargesheet.”The Court further noted that even the High Court had erred in treating such vague allegations as sufficient to proceed.Bald Assertions Without EvidenceThe Court also examined the allegation that the complainant was assaulted and dispossessed in November 2023 and found that no material evidence had been produced.Rejecting such claims, the Court held:“A statement making bald allegations are fatal to the case of the prosecution when the same are not supported by material facts and circumstances.”The Court also took note of the complainant’s non-appearance and observed:“The said non-appearance… inevitably draws our attention towards an adverse inference that the complainant herself is indifferent and uninterested in contesting the said appeals.”Applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that the case fell squarely within categories warranting quashing of proceedings.It observed:“The offence alleged against the accused/appellants herein is not made out… having regard to sub-paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7.”The Court found that even if the allegations were taken at face value, they did not disclose the commission of offences, were inherently improbable, and appeared to be motivated.Setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s order, the Supreme Court quashed FIR No. 758/2023, Chargesheet No. 01/2024, and the consequential criminal proceedings against the sister-in-law and parents-in-law of the complainant, holding that continuation of such proceedings in the absence of material evidence and in light of unexplained delay would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

(Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)