SC cautions against sweeping family-wide accusations in matrimonial disputes

The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the parents-in-law and sister-in-law of a woman in a dowry harassment and bigamy case, ruling that vague and general allegations without specific acts cannot justify prosecution under Section 498A IPC. T

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the parents-in-law and sister-in-law of a woman in a dowry harassment and bigamy case, holding that vague and general allegations without specific acts cannot justify prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and A.G. Masih set aside a Kerala High Court order which had refused to quash proceedings arising out of an FIR registered in 2016 at the Museum Police Station in Thiruvananthapuram.

---

Allowing the appeal, the apex court said that while detailed allegations of physical assault, dowry demand, and mental cruelty were made against the husband, the accusations against his relatives were largely based on their “presence” or alleged “encouragement” and lacked specific overt acts.

“In all three instances, the allegations consist of general statements of presence and encouragement rather than specific acts that individually constitute the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC,” the Justice Karol-led Bench observed.

Reiterating that criminal prosecution must be based on clear and specific allegations, it cautioned against the tendency to implicate all family members in matrimonial disputes without concrete evidence.

“A mere reference to the names of family members… without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud,” the Supreme Court said, adding that sweeping accusations unsupported by material evidence cannot form the basis for prosecution.

Examining the FIR and charge sheet, the apex court found that no specific acts of cruelty, demand, or assault were attributed to the parents-in-law on any identifiable occasion.

Similarly, the only allegation against the sister-in-law was that she received money for purchasing a flat, which by itself did not constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

On the charge of bigamy under Section 494 IPC, the bench held that liability cannot be extended to relatives in the absence of evidence showing their active role in the second marriage.

“Mere knowledge that an act is being or has been committed by another person does not, by itself, establish the requisite common intention,” it said, adding that there was no material to show that the accused relatives “actively participated in, facilitated, or encouraged” the second marriage.

The case stemmed from a 2016 FIR lodged by a woman alleging prolonged dowry harassment and physical abuse by her husband, along with claims that he had contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of their marriage.

After an investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and trial proceedings were initiated. The accused family members approached the Kerala High Court seeking the quashing of the case, but their plea was rejected in November 2024.

Setting aside the Kerala High Court’s order, the Supreme Court held that continuation of proceedings against the relatives would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

“The proceedings… stand quashed qua the accused-appellants herein,” the bench ordered. However, it clarified that the case against the husband would continue in accordance with the law.