Supreme Court overturns Section 498A IPC case against in-laws, finding ex-wife ‘clearly wants revenge’

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the ex-in-laws of a woman on charges of cruelty and harassment. (Abhishek vs Madhya Pradesh)

panel of judges Anirudh Bose, BV Sanjay Kumar And SVN Bhatti It noted that the allegations of marital cruelty and dowry harassment were general and comprehensive and that women “Obviously, she wanted to take revenge on her in-laws.“

“they (allegations) It is so far-fetched and intolerable that no reasonable person can conclude that there are sufficient reasons to proceed. against them…to allow criminal proceedings to proceed against the appellants in such a case would thus result in a clear and manifest injustice,The Supreme Court noted.

The Supreme Court was hearing appeals challenging a Madhya Pradesh state high court order refusing to annul proceedings against the woman’s former son-in-law and mother-in-law.

The husband had earlier obtained a divorce judgment that dissolved the marriage, although the woman’s appeal against the granting of a divorce is still pending before the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the woman made allegations of cruelty, and eventually, an indictment was filed against all three defendants, citing offenses under Article 498a of the Islamic Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961.

The woman alleged cruelty, harassment of the dowry, and poor living conditions in the marital home.

Complaints were also sent to the Mumbai Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court against one of the brothers who joined the judicial service as a civil judge, a few months after the woman married his brother.

The Supreme Court invalidated the criminal case filed by the woman against her husband’s family, noting that there was Glaring contradictions and contradictions in her version of events.

The court indicated that the woman had separated from the marital home in 2009, but she did not file a complaint against her in-laws until 2013.Right before her husband started the divorce proceedings“.

With regard to the allegations against the judicial officer, the Supreme Court questioned why he demanded dowry from the complaining woman, even if he was inclined to commit such a crime, when he was married to someone else.

Since the woman had earlier also confessed to murder Wicked complaint v. Judicial Officer before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court concluded that her motives were not pure.

The court also remained unfazed by allegations that the woman’s mother-in-law taunted her by saying that since she wore a long dress, “She must be undressed and made to dance in the street“.

The court described this allegation as:wholly insufficient to constitute harshness with respect to Section 498A IPC.”

Thus, appeals were allowed. The criminal complaint and the actions taken against the appellants (in-laws) were cancelled.

Senior attorney Siddharth Luthra With lawyers Anmol Khita, Dushyant Dahia, Kumar Kashyap, Kusar Hussain and Dinesh Chandra Pandey, they appeared before the former in-laws of the complainant.

Attorneys Abhinav Shrivastava, Sunny Chowdhury, Sasmit Batra, RP Singh, Shivang Rawat, Pashupati Nath Razdan, Nidhi, Mohit Girdhar, Sarthak Arora, Sandeep Sharma, Karan Bishnoi, Abhimanyu Singh, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Maithiri Jagat Joshi and Astick Gupta appear. Government of Madhya Pradesh.