Section 498A case against husband's kin can't be dropped without proper evaluation: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that while sweeping allegations of cruelty made by a married woman against her in-laws are not sufficient to attract criminal liability under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such allegations cannot be routinely rejected as a thumb rule [V Karthyayani v State of Kerala & anr]..The Court emphasised that each Section 498A case has to be assessed on a case-to-case basis.Justice A Badharudeen made the observation while refusing to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Section 498A (cruelty to married woman) of the IPC against the relatives of a married woman's estranged husband.The Court acknowledged that there was a tendency to rope in the relatives of estranged husbands in cases registered under Section 498A by making sweeping and general allegations of cruelty. The judge added that such general and sweeping allegations are quite insufficient to sustain a Section 498A case. In such cases, the High Court may quash the case before trial.However, the scenario is different when the allegations against the relatives of the accused husband are specific. In such cases, the matter must proceed to trial, and the High Court cannot quash the proceedings at an earlier stage. "It is noticed that the relatives of the husband being roped into prosecution alleging commission of offence under Section 498A of the IPC on the basis of general allegations without specifying the over acts with certainty. At the same time, it is not possible to lay down a ratio that allegations against the relatives of the husband generally to be viewed as false as a thumb rule and to drop proceedings against them, without addressing the allegations. In fact, the allegations should be evaluated in a case to case basis," the Court held..Not possible to lay down a ratio that allegations against the relatives of the husband generally to be viewed as false as a thumb rule.Kerala High Court.The case before the Court was linked to a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife who had married in 2005. The wife later filed a cruelty case against her husband and in-laws. She alleged that after her husband returned from work in the Gulf, he manhandled her under the influence of alcohol. She added that her mother-in-law and brother-in-law tried to oust her from the house built by her husband. She said that her husband too pressured her to hand over the house to his mother. The dispute intensified after the husband transferred the property to his mother’s name, before heading back to the Gulf. The woman claimed that she was able to stay back in the house with the couple's child only due to the intervention of the Vanitha cell (women's cell) of the State police. .The woman's in-laws later moved the High Court to quash the case against them, arguing that the allegations made were general and lacked specificity.However, the Court disagreed and found that the accusations against the accused in-laws were specific and detailed. It opined that these allegations could not be dismissed merely on the ground that they involved relatives of the husband. It concluded that there was a prima facie case against the in-laws in this case for a trial."Where the allegations are specific against the relatives of the accused, trial is necessary, and quashment prayer would necessarily fail," it said. Therefore, it dismissed the plea filed by the woman's in-laws and directed them to face trial..Advocate TK Vipindas represented for the petitioners (in-laws).Public Prosecutor Jibu TS appeared for the State.Advocates A Arunkumar and Sachin George Aramban appeared for the complainant..[Read Order]