Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Distant Relative in Matrimonial Dispute: Payal Sharma vs. State of Punjab (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 26 November 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 896

Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can distant relatives be implicated in matrimonial disputes based on vague and general allegations? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving allegations of dowry harassment and cheating. The court emphasized the need for specific and direct allegations against individuals, particularly those distantly related to the primary parties in a matrimonial dispute. This judgment clarifies the extent to which family members can be held accountable in such cases and sets a precedent for future cases.

The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal. The judgment was authored by Justice C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The case revolves around a matrimonial dispute between Amit Sharma and Vandana Sharma, who married on February 23, 2019. Amit Sharma left for Canada on March 7, 2019, while Vandana stayed in her matrimonial home in Jalandhar, Punjab. Vandana joined him in Canada on December 2, 2019. On September 22, 2020, Amit Sharma filed for divorce in Canada. Following this, on December 3, 2020, Subhash Chander Kapila, Vandana’s father, filed an FIR against several individuals, including Payal Sharma (accused No. 5) and her husband (accused No. 6), alleging offences under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Later, Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC were added to the FIR. Payal Sharma is the wife of the cousin brother of Amit Sharma. The FIR was filed in Jalandhar, Punjab.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Payal Sharma (accused No. 5) and her husband (accused No. 6) filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court allowed the petition for accused No. 6, quashing the FIR against him, but dismissed the petition for accused No. 5. Consequently, accused No. 5 appealed to the Supreme Court against the rejection of her plea, while the complainant appealed against the quashing of the FIR against accused No. 6.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for criminal breach of trust.
• Section 498-A of the IPC: This section addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman.
• Section 420 of the IPC: This section defines and punishes cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 120-B of the IPC: This section deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 417 of the IPC: This section deals with the punishment for cheating.
• Section 415 of the IPC: This section defines cheating.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law.

The Supreme Court also considered the interpretation of the term “relative” in the context of Section 498-A of the IPC, emphasizing that it typically includes persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption.

Arguments

Arguments of Accused No. 5 (Payal Sharma):

• Accused No. 5 contended that she is merely the wife of the cousin brother of the first accused and resides in a different city (Mohali) from where the complainant’s daughter resided (Jalandhar).
• She argued that the FIR contains only general and omnibus allegations against her, lacking specific details and evidence.
• She submitted that she was implicated with mala fide intentions to pressurize her family.
• She argued that if the High Court quashed the FIR against her husband (accused No. 6) on the same grounds, the same should apply to her.

Arguments of the Complainant:

• The complainant argued that there were specific allegations against accused No. 5 and that a challan had been submitted, and the matter was listed for framing charges.
• The complainant contended that all pleas could be raised by accused No. 5 before the trial court.
• The complainant admitted that there were no specific allegations against accused No. 6 under Sections 406 and 498-A of the IPC but argued that offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC were applicable.
• The complainant argued that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR against accused No. 6, especially after the filing of the final report.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR against accused No. 6 while refusing to quash it against accused No. 5.
2. Whether the allegations against accused No. 5 and 6 were specific enough to constitute the alleged offences.
3. Whether the High Court should have considered the fact that the challan was filed before the High Court took up the matter for consideration.
4. Whether the filing of the final report prior to filing of the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., should be a ground for interfering with the impugned judgment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following cases and legal provisions:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of accused No. 5 and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against her. The Court dismissed the appeal of the complainant, upholding the High Court’s decision to quash the FIR against accused No. 6.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. [ (2010) 7 SCC 667 ]: The Court relied on this case to highlight the tendency of over-implication in matrimonial disputes and the need for caution when dealing with complaints against distant relatives.
• Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr. [ (2012) 10 SCC 741 ]: The Court used this case to emphasize that mere casual reference of family members without active involvement does not justify taking cognizance against them.
• Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar & Ors. [ (2022) 6 SCC 599 ]: The Court cited this case to support the quashing of proceedings against family members based on general and ominous allegations.
• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [ 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 ]: The Court referred to this case to establish the categories of cases where the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process.
• Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. [ (2013) 10 SCC 591 ]: The Court cited this case to clarify that a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., can be filed for quashing the chargesheet even before the framing of charges.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• The lack of specific allegations against accused No. 5 and 6.
• The distant relationship of accused No. 5 with the complainant’s family.
• The tendency of over-implication in matrimonial disputes.
• The need to prevent abuse of process of law.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court emphasized the need to scrutinize allegations against distant relatives carefully, ensuring that they are not merely victims of over-implication or exaggerated versions of events. The court held that the High Court should have interfered and quashed the subject FIR and all other proceedings therefrom in relation to accused No.5 as well.

“The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.”

“The allegations of harassment by husband’s close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion.”

“The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.”

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• General and omnibus allegations are not sufficient to implicate distant relatives in matrimonial disputes.
• Courts must carefully scrutinize allegations against individuals who are not closely related to the primary parties.
• The filing of a challan does not bar the High Court from exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent abuse of process.
• Over-implication of family members in matrimonial disputes should be avoided.
• The term “relative” in Section 498-A of the IPC should be interpreted to include persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against accused No. 5 be quashed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that distant relatives cannot be implicated in matrimonial disputes based on vague and general allegations. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent over-implication and abuse of the legal process. This judgment further clarifies the scope of Section 482 of the CrPC, emphasizing that the power to quash proceedings can be exercised even after the filing of a chargesheet to secure the ends of justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Payal Sharma vs. State of Punjab provides crucial guidance on the handling of matrimonial dispute cases involving distant relatives. The Court emphasized that specific allegations are necessary to implicate individuals in such disputes and that courts must be cautious to avoid over-implication and abuse of the legal process. The decision underscores the importance of protecting individuals from baseless accusations and ensuring that the legal process is used fairly and justly.