Kolkata, Sept 24 — The Supreme Court of India emphasized the need for judicial prudence in dealing with allegations regarding matrimonial cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The judgment occurred in the case Shobhit Kumar Mittal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where a Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan quashed a criminal case filed against a man by his sister-in-law.
“Courts must act with care, caution, and pragmatism,” the Bench stated, “especially in matrimonial disputes where allegations must be scrutinized with great care and circumspection to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process.”
The complainant brought complaints against her husband, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law—who is the appellant—of subjecting her to dowry-related harassment, citing Sections 323 and 498A of the IPC. The accusation also cited Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. According to the complainant, the harassment led to a burst vein in her brain. It left her paralysed in the right hand and the leg.
However, the Supreme Court found the accusation vague and lacking specific instances of cruelty. The Court noted that the case failed to build a direct link between the instances of cruelty and the medical conditions of the complainant.
“The term ‘cruelty’ cannot be established without specific instances,” the judgment read. “General allegations weaken the prosecution’s case and raise doubts about the credibility of the complainant’s version.”
The Allahabad High Court had earlier refused to quash the case, prompting the appellant to take it forward to the Supreme Court. On review, the apex court set aside the High Court’s orders and quashed the proceedings against the appellant.
The ruling reinforces the principle that criminal law must be taken care of with caution and diligence. Especially when the cases involve family disputes, the proceedings must follow strict diligence, pragmatism, and caution.
The case bears a sensitive reminder to safeguard individuals from wrongful prosecution. While it’s critical to protect the victim’s rights, this case hints toward having a strict adherence to caution, objectivism, and pragmatism for divorce lawyers in Kolkata and other states in India.
Legal Representation:
● For the Appellant: Advocates Saurabh Soni, Maneesh Saxena, Anupam Singh, and Mannat Singh.
● For the Respondents: Advocates Vijendra Singh, Vikas Bansal, Apurva Singh, Devesh Kumar Mishra, and Vasantha Kumar.
Share on
×