Courts Must Prevent Harassment Of Individuals Having No Involvement In Matrimonial Cruelty: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that it is the duty of Courts to prevent harassment of individuals having no substantial involvement in the alleged matrimonial cruelty.

Justice Arun Monga said that general and omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes, which are broad and non-specific cannot withstand legal scrutiny.

“Such allegations, if unchecked, can lead to the misuse of the process of law. This misuse could result in unnecessary trials that can have long-term ramifications for all parties involved. It is the duty of the court to prevent harassment of individuals have no substantial involvement in the alleged matrimonial cruelty,” the Court said.

It added that implications of levelling frivolous omnibus general allegations may even be counter-productive for the complainant whose frivolous allegations may divert her or the prosecution attention from genuine issues and undermine even the credibility of legitimate grievance.

The Court also said that in such cases, the accused would face or suffer unwarranted legal battles, social stigma and emotional distress.

“Long-term ramifications of proceeding with patently unbelievable allegations and baseless cases causes unnecessary additional burden on judicial system, miscarriage of justice and has a detrimental impact on the personal life of the accused person. It also risks discrediting the genuine purpose of Section 498A IPC, which is, to provide protection and justice to victims of dowry harassment and matrimonial cruelty,” the Court said.

It added that while cruelty under Section 498A of IPC is crucial for protecting women from matrimonial cruelty and dowry harassment, its misuse through broad and unsubstantiated allegations against the husband's relatives must be checked.

“Only if the allegations stand the legal scrutiny and prima facie exist, that proceedings in trial should then continue. For, such an approach protects innocent individuals from facing unnecessary litigation and consequential hardships, harassment and humiliation in the matrimonial crossfire,” it added.

The Court made the observations while quashing cruelty case filed by the wife against the sister in law. The husband died during the pendency of the proceedings.

Allowing the quashing plea, the Court said that no specific date, occasion, details or particulars or any overt or covert acts of the sister in law were mentioned in the FIR.

It said that there was nothing in the FIR to show that the sister in law had conspired with, abetted and encouraged the her brother (husband) to commit domestic violence and cruelty upon the complainant and her daughter.

“There is absolutely no allegation of any kind whatsoever against the petitioner's husband. It is highly improbable that the petitioner, in the presence of her husband, would have been insulting, humiliating, calling the complainant disgracefully as bloody bitch so frequently that she was nicknamed as bitch,” the Court said.

It added that ex-facie, all the allegations against the petitioner sister in law were without any substance and the same were not believable.

The Court noted that the FIR was registered sometime in 2018 and for five years, the trial did not proceed. It said that the delay in trial was also a contributory factor to exercise as an inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR qua the sister in law.

“Of course, after the petitioner approached this Court, the trial as against the petitioner was l stayed. Yet, the fact remains that for five years, it had not made any head way,” the Court said.

It added that while Section 498A of IPC was introduced to protect women from dowry related harassment and cruelty by their husbands and in-laws, but an increased tendency to implicate the husband's relatives in matrimonial disputes, without proper scrutiny, for extraneous and malicious reasons, would be it's utter misuse.

Justice Monga concluded that it is thus crucial to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons in such cases to prevent the misuse of legal provisions and ensure that the judicial process is not exploited.

While quashing the FIR, Justice Monga vacated the interim order staying of the trial confining to the sister in law.

The trial against the other co-accused shall continue proceed in accordance with law, it added.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Amrita Sarkar, Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, Mr. Kartik Gupta and Mr. Gitesh Sinha, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State; Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan and Ms. Simran Rao, Advocates for respondent no. 2

Title: POOJA RASNE @ PUJA RASNE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1131

Click Here To Read Order