The Jharkhand High Court observes that section 498-A IPC being misused by disgruntled wives.

The Jharkhand High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by the wife against her brother in law and sister in law alleging that the sister in law approached her in her house and tried to burn her face. However on appreciation of facts in the criminal petition for quashing of the criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 14.06.2013 passed in connection with C.P. Case No.996 of 2013, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad the Court has observed that:

“With the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives, Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted in the statute. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years and it appears that in many cases, the object of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is being misused and the said Section is used as weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives.”

The Court further observed that:

“In view of the above facts and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the complaint petition as well as the documents brought on record including the order taking cognizance. It is an admitted fact that petitioner no.1 is the brother-in-law of opposite party no.2 and petitioner no.2 is the sister-in-law of opposite party no.2. They are residing at Hyderabad, whereas, the alleged place of occurrence is at Dhanbad. In paragraph 8 of the complaint petition, it has been alleged that on 02.04.2013, the accused came to Dhanbad and tortured the complainant, whereas, Annexure-2 is the document issued by the South

Central Railway, which clearly suggest that petitioner no.2 was travelling on 01.04.2013 and three berths were allotted and the name of passengers are disclosed as Rina Rajput, Ananya Rajput and Diksha Rajput which clearly suggest that false statement is made in paragraph 8 of the complaint petition.”

“Further, the role played by these petitioners is not disclosed and there are only general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners. The present complaint case fails to establish specific allegation against these petitioners, who happened to be brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant.”

The Court while considering relevant circumstances and in absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioners, held that it was unjust if the petitioners were forced to go through the tribulations of a trial and hence the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 14.06.2013 passed in connection with C.P. Case No.996 of 2013, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad were quashed.

Rakesh Rajput and another vs. The State of Jharkhand and another