New Delhi: Supreme Court Monday said criminal law cannot be permitted to be set in motion against every relative of the husband in a matrimonial dispute merely on the basis of omnibus allegations lacking a specific factual foundation.
The top court said that while safeguarding the rights and dignity of victims of domestic violence remains of paramount importance, the courts are simultaneously required to ensure that the rigours of criminal law are not indiscriminately extended to every family member without a clear factual foundation.
It said when matrimonial relationships deteriorate and bitterness sets in, there is a natural tendency for allegations to be amplified or broadly worded out of anger, frustration or emotional distress.
“While the anguish of a complainant in a failed marriage cannot be lightly disregarded, equally, criminal law cannot be permitted to be set in motion against every relative of the husband merely on the basis of generalised and omnibus allegations lacking a specific factual foundation,” a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh said.
It said courts are required to exercise greater caution and carefully scrutinise whether the allegations genuinely disclose the commission of cognisable offences against each accused individually, lest the criminal process itself becomes a “tool of harassment and misuse”.
The observations came in a verdict which quashed a 2023 FIR lodged in Madhya Pradesh for alleged offences, including under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against four family members of a man who was embroiled in a matrimonial dispute.
The bench also quashed the proceedings initiated by the complainant against them in a separate complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The top court noted that during the pendency of proceedings before it, a decree of divorce was granted by a family court dissolving the marriage between the man and the complainant.
However, the bench made clear that the concerned trial court shall proceed with the case against the remaining accused.
It said its verdict shall not operate as a bar to the trial court “exercising its power under Section 319 CrPC to summon the present appellants, if during the course of trial, evidence emerges before it which, in the opinion of the trial court, is sufficient to proceed against them for any of the offences alleged”.
It said the court is equally conscious of the reality that genuine cases of cruelty and domestic violence do occur within the confines of the matrimonial home and often remain concealed from public gaze.
“Acts of emotional, verbal, economic or physical abuse within the domestic sphere may not always leave behind readily available evidence or independent witnesses, and the absence of such evidence at the threshold cannot by itself be a ground to disbelieve a victim,” the bench said.
It said to address this social evil, legislations such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the penal provisions relating to cruelty and dowry harassment have been enacted with wide amplitude and protective intent.
The bench said in prosecutions arising out of matrimonial disputes, the allegations against each accused must be specific, distinct and supported by prima facie material indicating active involvement in the alleged acts of cruelty, harassment or unlawful demand of dowry.
“Mere allegations that family members ‘supported’ the husband, failed to intervene or advised the complainant to adjust in the matrimonial relationship, without anything further, would not ipso facto attract criminal liability,” it said.
The bench noted it was not uncommon that when matrimonial relationships deteriorate, allegations were made in the heat of emotional turmoil and bitterness, often resulting in the entire family of the spouse being drawn into criminal litigation.
“However, criminal law cannot be permitted to become an instrument for venting personal grievances or settling familial scores in the absence of clear, specific and legally sustainable allegations,” it said.
The bench noted that courts must, therefore, exercise a heightened degree of caution and judicial scrutiny before permitting criminal prosecution against relatives who are sought to be implicated merely by virtue of their relationship with the spouse.
“However, mere familial association with the husband or failure to support the complainant in a marital dispute cannot by itself constitute a criminal offence in the absence of specific allegations disclosing active participation in acts amounting to cruelty, harassment or unlawful demand of dowry,” the bench said.
The top court said its observations should not be construed to mean that relatives of the husband can never be prosecuted under the relevant penal provisions.
“Where the material on record discloses specific overt acts, active participation or direct involvement in perpetrating cruelty, harassment or domestic violence, such relatives would undoubtedly be liable to face prosecution in accordance with the law,” it said.
It said the court is acutely conscious of the deeply troubling social reality that matrimonial homes in India continue to witness grave instances of cruelty, dowry harassment and domestic violence perpetrated not merely by the husband but, in numerous cases, with the active cooperation and connivance of the extended family members as well.
Dealing with the case, the bench noted that the allegations were primarily directed against the husband.
