The Gujarat High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against an 86-year-old woman under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) while highlighting the rampant misuse of this provision to harass family members.
Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, while ruling on the case of Jyantilal Vadilal Shah & Anr v. State, observed that the continuation of the FIR would cause significant hardship to the octogenarian without serving any fruitful purpose.
The court stressed that it is crucial to ensure that criminal prosecution is not employed as a tool for harassment, personal vendettas, or ulterior motives to pressurize the accused or settle scores. Justice Bhatt acknowledged that Section 498A is frequently misused, with complainants roping in all family members to subject them to harassment. The court cited several judgments by the Supreme Court that have taken cognizance of such incidents.
The FIR against the elderly woman and her son was registered in 2016 based on a complaint by her son's wife, accusing them of dowry demands and harassment. The situation deteriorated due to allegations of the son's involvement in an extramarital affair, leading the complainant to separate from her in-laws. She claimed that she faced physical abuse from her husband when she confronted him about the alleged affair, prompting her to file an FIR against her husband, in-laws, and the woman associated with the illicit relationship.
In 2017, the applicants approached the court seeking the quashing of the FIR. The counsel representing the elderly woman argued that the allegations directly implicating her client were unsubstantial, as most of the accusations were directed at other individuals. The lawyer also emphasized that continuing the criminal proceedings would subject the elderly woman, who was 80 years old at the time of the application, to undue harassment, particularly after the demise of her husband.
The court concluded that the main allegations under Sections 498A, 323, and 114 of the IPC, along with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, were not prima facie made against the elderly woman. It observed that she had been wrongly implicated as the mother-in-law of the complainant, with only general allegations made against her. Taking into account her age and the fact that she was included in the FIR based on generalized accusations, the court deemed the continuation of the proceedings as an abuse of the legal process, serving no meaningful purpose.
While quashing the FIR against the 86-year-old woman, the court allowed the prosecution to proceed with the trial against the other accused individuals involved in the case.
Picture Source :
