The Telangana High Court in the case P. Rajeshwari and Another vs The State Of A.P.& Another observed while taking a serious trend of false implication of the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, the false implication of the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes based on general and omnibus allegations and if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law.
The bench comprising of Justice A. Santosh Reddy observed and ordered to quash further proceedings against the A2/ mother-in-law, A3/ brother-in-law (husband’s brother), and sister-in-law/A4 (wife of husband’s brother) of a woman, who had leveled allegations of harassing her for dowry [booked u/s 498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961].
Further, the brother-in-law (A3) was accused of molesting her and therefore, he was booked under section 354 IPC as well. It was alleged that he had expressed sympathy towards her and forcibly took her in his lap and tried to caress her and when she resisted him and tried to run away, Thus, A-3 and A-4 also came there and all of them gagged her mouth and mercilessly beat her.
Therefore, all three moved to the High Court seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted, while perusing the FIR and charge sheet and other records of the case that the main allegations were made by the wife/complainant against her husband (A-1) for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
It was noted by the court that the other family members i.e., Mother/A-2 and A-4/Sister-in-law of A-1 were implicated by way of omnibus and general allegations and that there were no specific and distinct allegations against them.
Thus, with respect to the allegations made against A3 (brother of the husband), the court noted that the only allegation against him was that he had expressed his sympathy towards the complainant and he was caught holding her hand.
In the present case, the court observed that she restricted the alleged incident that occurred prior to 28.02.2007. If at all there is truth in the second respondent allegations, so far as A-3 is concerned, she being a software Engineer would not have kept quite without taking any recourse from 12.06.2007 on which date it was alleged by the second respondent to have molested by the petitioner/A-3. Further, the court observed as it prima facie that the allegations did not make out or satisfy the essential ingredients of offence under Section 354 IPC.
On the basis of omnibus allegations, noting that the relatives of A-1 i.e. A-2 to A-4 had been roped and without any specific instances of their involvement in the alleged offences. The Court stated that the criminal proceedings deserved to be quashed to avoid the rigor of undergoing trial.
Therefore, the court considered it a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash further proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4.