Bombay High Court Slams Partial Police Probe in 498A Case Against In‑laws — Ramesh Sitaldas Judgment
Introduction
- The Bombay High Court rebuked the police for their biased investigation in the case of Ramesh Sitaldas & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (WP 137 of 2021) Filed to quash the registered FIR No.152 of 2020 with Malabar Hill Police Station, against petitioners, for offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 406, 323, 506(ii) R/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein their daughter-in-law alleged domestic violence by husband and in-laws.
- In their scrutiny, Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and NR Borkar found the inquiry to be overbearing, displaying bias and ill-motivation, which constituted an abuse of the legal process.
Factual Background
- The complainant and the Son of the Petitioners, Deepak, have been friends since their school days, and this friendship has continued even after they finished schooling. Over time, the couple decided to get married. On May 17, 2018, the engagement ceremony of the complainant and the son of the petitioners was solemnized.
- The complainant alleged that Petitioner No. 2 gifted her a gold necklace, earrings, and bracelets, while her father gifted Deepak a gold chain weighing 100 grams, which was a family heirloom, and a cash amount of ₹1,00,000. The complainant alleges that Petitioner No. 2 withdrew the gold ornaments gifted to her and failed to return them. The wedding of the complainant and Deepak was solemnized on May 28, 2018.
- The son later left for Dubai to take a job, while the complainant stayed behind with her in-laws. She moved to Dubai later with her husband, but would stay at her parents ' house whenever she came to Mumbai.
- Her complaint, however, highlighted that during her stay in the matrimonial home, her mother-in-law would harass her over trivial issues, and her father-in-law would taunt her.
- The woman also alleged that her husband would constantly fight with her and subject her to physical and mental cruelty. She further claimed that her husband and the petitioners failed to return certain personal valuables to her. She alleged that her father had given her diamond jewelry worth ₹1,10,00,000/- and the petitioners had given her jewelry worth ₹1,32,00,000/-.
- The Malabar Hill police lodged a first information report (FIR) against her parents-in-law and husband in September 2020 for various offenses, including cheating under Section 420 and cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
- The parents-in-law (petitioners) then approached the High Court to quash the FIR on the ground that the allegations in the FIR included offenses under Sections 498-A, 420, 406, 323, 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the IPC, do not disclose any offense against them. The petitioners further claim that during the investigation, the investigating officer sealed their lockers and froze all their bank accounts. And they have been prevented from accessing their money to meet their basic daily expenses, as well as medical expenses.
Analysis & Judgment
- The court emphasized the significance of prima facie evidence before subjecting an individual to legal proceedings, highlighting the potential harm to personal liberty, mental well-being, and reputation. Despite the absence of such evidence, the complainant's parents-in-law were dragged into the matrimonial dispute, prompting the court to annul the criminal proceedings against them.
- “It is well settled that to prove offense under Section 498-A, it has to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously or persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels do not amount to cruelty,” the Court said.
- Notably, the court acknowledged the mother-in-law's passing during the ongoing matter, emphasizing the need to vindicate her name and reputation. The complainant, who married the petitioners' adopted son, alleged harassment by her in-laws and cruelty by her husband, leading to the filing of an FIR in September 2020. The High Court, in its final judgment, dismissed the charges against the parents-in-law, asserting that even if the complainant's allegations were true, they wouldn't constitute cheating or cruelty under Section 498A.
- The court criticized the police for filing a chargesheet in violation of the interim court order and questioned the explanation for the oversight, describing it as an arbitrary overreach.
- The court expressed concern over the freezing of the petitioners' bank accounts, which affected their ability to address urgent medical needs, such as their mother-in-law's COVID-19 condition.
- The court condemned the high-handed action, stating that it compromised the right to live with human dignity.
Conclusion
In granting the petition and quashing the criminal case, the court emphasized that an investigating officer should not have unfettered discretion to brand an innocent person as an accused without sufficient evidence. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of a fair and unbiased investigation, protecting individuals from unwarranted legal proceedings. For legal assistance, contact us.
