Keywords: – FIR, Gujarat High Court, Section 498A, Complainant.
The Gujarat High Court recently dismissed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against an 86-year-old woman on charges of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court acknowledged the widespread misuse of this provision to harass family members. In the case of Jyantilal Vadilal Shah & Anr v. State, Justice Sandeep N Bhatt noted that continuing with the FIR would impose significant hardships on the elderly woman, and no meaningful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to continue.
The judge emphasized that it is the responsibility of the courts to ensure that criminal prosecution is not abused as a means of harassment, personal vendetta, or to exert undue pressure on the accused or settle personal scores. Therefore, while quashing the FIR, the single-judge made it clear that such misuse should not be tolerated.
“At this stage, a mention is required to be made that the current scenario in the society is that Sections of 498A are being rampantly misused by the complainants and in such cases, all the family members are roped in the complaint only with a view to harass the family members and the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken cognizance of such incidents in number of judgments,” the Court remarked.
In 2016, an FIR was lodged against the elderly woman and her son based on a complaint made by her son’s wife. The complaint alleged that they were demanding dowry and subjecting her to harassment. The situation worsened due to allegations of the son’s involvement in an extramarital relationship, leading the complainant to decide to separate from her in-laws.
According to the complainant-wife, her husband physically assaulted her when she confronted him about the alleged affair. Consequently, she filed an FIR against her husband, her in-laws (including the elderly woman), and the woman involved in the alleged illicit relationship.
In 2017, the applicants approached the court seeking the quashing of the FIR. During the proceedings in the High Court, the counsel representing the elderly woman argued that there were no substantial allegations directly implicating her client in the FIR. Instead, most of the allegations were directed towards other individuals.
Furthermore, it was argued that considering the applicant’s age at the time of filing the application, she would face unwarranted harassment if the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.
The Bench, upon careful consideration, observed that the applicant, who was the mother-in-law of the complainant, was wrongly accused. The court noted that only general allegations were made against her without specific evidence linking her to the alleged offenses.
Advocate Yogini H Upadhyay represented the applicant.
Advocate Mohini H Dave appeared for the complainant.
Advocate Soaham Joshi represented the State.
Written by- Mubashara Fatima, College name- Unity PG and Law College, Semester- 6th, intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments