Supreme Court quashes FIR against parents-in-law in a case of alleged cruelty and forced abortion: Digambar vs. State of Maharashtra (2024) INSC 1019 (20 December 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 20 December 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 1019
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can parents-in-law be held liable for cruelty and forced abortion based on vague allegations? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, quashing a First Information Report (FIR) against a couple accused of subjecting their daughter-in-law to cruelty and causing her miscarriage. The court emphasized the need for specific allegations and concrete evidence in such cases, highlighting the potential for misuse of legal provisions in matrimonial disputes. This judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, underscores the importance of protecting innocent family members from being dragged into criminal proceedings based on flimsy accusations.

Case Background

The case involves a complaint filed by a woman against her husband, Madhav Suryawanshi, and her parents-in-law, Digambar Suryawanshi and Kashibai Suryawanshi. The complainant alleged that after the birth of her second daughter in 2011, her husband and in-laws began demanding a son. She claimed they subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, berating and insulting her for not producing a male child.

The complainant further alleged that on November 28, 2016, her in-laws visited her and forced her to eat a meal they had prepared. The next day, she experienced severe stomach pain and bleeding, leading to a miscarriage. She claimed that a piece of the fetus was later found in her womb. Based on these allegations of forced abortion and physical and mental cruelty, she filed a complaint, leading to the registration of FIR No. 339 of 2018.

The parents-in-law, along with their son, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to quash the FIR. During the pendency of this application, the Family Court at Latur granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent between the complainant and her husband on May 20, 2019. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed the application to quash the FIR, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants, along with their son, had filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the CrPC before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad, seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court dismissed their application, which led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court, the chargesheet was filed on February 8, 2021. The son of the appellants also filed a separate Special Leave Petition, which was later disposed of as abated due to his death.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the allegations in light of the following legal provisions:

• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman. It states:
  
  “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. – Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
  Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means —
  (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
  (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
• Section 312 of the IPC: This section addresses the offense of causing a miscarriage. It states:
  
  “312. Causing miscarriage.- Whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry, shall, if such miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if the woman be quick with child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
  Explanation.—A woman who causes herself to miscarry, is within the meaning of this section.”
• Section 313 of the IPC: This section deals with causing a miscarriage without the woman’s consent. It states:
  
  “313. Causing miscarriage without woman’s consent. – Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section without the consent of the woman, whether the woman is quick with child or not, shall be punished with 349[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Parents-in-law):

• The appellants argued that they had no active role in the alleged offenses and were merely implicated because they were the complainant’s parents-in-law.
• They contended that if the alleged forced abortion had occurred on November 28, 2016, it should have been mentioned in the divorce notice sent by the complainant on May 15, 2018. The absence of any mention of this incident in the notice indicates that the complaint was fabricated and filed as an afterthought to pressure them.
• The appellants submitted that even if a piece of the fetus was found in the complainant’s womb, it does not automatically imply that they administered a poisonous substance. There was no evidence to support such a claim.
• They argued that the chargesheet revealed that the complainant had visited the hospital due to severe abdominal pain and bleeding, and the doctor’s statement suggested that the fetus became lifeless due to abortion pills, without any indication of who administered them.
• The appellants highlighted that the complainant had filed another FIR against their son for attempted murder after they did not respond favorably to the divorce notice, suggesting that these were pressure tactics.
• They argued that the allegations in the FIR were absurd and inherently improbable, lacking sufficient material to proceed against them.

Arguments by the Respondents (State and Complainant):

• The respondents argued that the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclosed offenses under Sections 498A, 312, 313, and 34 of the IPC.
• They submitted that the complainant was consistently harassed after the birth of her second daughter because the appellants and their son wanted a male child.
• The respondents contended that the appellants instigated their son against the complainant and played a significant role in the harassment and cruelty, including the miscarriage.
• They argued that the reliability and truthfulness of the allegations could not be examined at this stage and should be determined by the Trial Court.
• The respondents stated that the High Court was correct in holding that it could not be presumed that the complainant made false allegations to obtain a divorce.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

Whether the allegations made in the FIR, when taken at their face value, constitute any offense or make out a case against the appellants under Sections 498A, 312, 313, and 34 of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others vs. State of Telangana and Another (2024) INSC 953, stating that vague allegations of cruelty are not sufficient to attract Section 498A of the IPC.
• The Court followed Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat (2024) INSC 960, stating that cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC must be done with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide.
• The Court followed State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (1992) INSC 363, which laid down the principles for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of specific allegations and concrete evidence against the parents-in-law. The Court emphasized that vague and omnibus statements, without any specific instances of cruelty or involvement in the alleged forced abortion, were insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings. The Court also considered the timing of the complaint, which was filed after the divorce notice, and the absence of any mention of the alleged incidents in the divorce notice, suggesting that the complaint was a retaliatory measure.

The Court also highlighted the potential for misuse of Section 498A of the IPC in matrimonial disputes and cautioned against prosecuting family members based on generalized accusations.

Fact:Law Ratio

The following table illustrates the ratio of factual and legal considerations that influenced the court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the facts and evidence presented. The Court found that the allegations made by the complainant were not supported by concrete evidence and were largely based on vague and general statements. The Court also considered the sequence of events, including the divorce notice and the subsequent filing of the complaint, which suggested that the complaint was motivated by personal discord rather than genuine grievances. The Court also relied on the principles laid down in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (1992) INSC 363, which allows for quashing of proceedings where the allegations do not constitute a prima facie case.

The Court rejected the argument that the reliability of the allegations should be determined by the Trial Court, stating that the High Court should have given a prima facie consideration to the allegations. The Court emphasized that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose any offense against the parents-in-law.

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan agreeing on the reasoning and conclusion.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:

• “A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud.”
• “The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife.”
• “Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family.”

Key Takeaways

• Vague and omnibus allegations are not sufficient to sustain criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC.
• Specific instances of cruelty and involvement in an offense must be clearly stated in the FIR.
• Courts must exercise caution to prevent the misuse of legal provisions in matrimonial disputes.
• Family members cannot be dragged into criminal proceedings based on generalized accusations.
• The timing of the complaint and the absence of crucial details in earlier communications can be considered while assessing the veracity of allegations.
• A prima facie case must be made out before initiating criminal proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants in FIR No. 339 of 2018 and Final Report No. 10 of 2021 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that vague and omnibus allegations of cruelty and forced abortion are insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings against parents-in-law. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in previous cases such as Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others vs. State of Telangana and Another (2024) INSC 953 and State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (1992) INSC 363, emphasizing the need for specific allegations and concrete evidence in such cases. This case also highlights the concern about the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC in matrimonial disputes and the need to protect innocent family members from being dragged into criminal proceedings based on flimsy accusations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the FIR against the parents-in-law underscores the importance of specific allegations and concrete evidence in cases of cruelty and forced abortion. The judgment serves as a reminder that vague accusations and generalized statements are not sufficient to sustain criminal proceedings, particularly in the context of matrimonial disputes. This ruling protects innocent family members from being unnecessarily harassed and emphasizes the need for a careful and judicious approach in such matters.