The high court on Thursday observed that
some women were abusing IPC Section 498A to harass those the clause
aims to protect them from — husbands and in-laws.
Justice K.S.
Ahluwalia made the observation while quashing criminal charges against
Mita Bhaduri and her husband Tapan, who were fearing arrest in
connection with a case under section 498A (cruelty by husband or
relatives of husband) lodged by her sister-in-law Maumita Maitra.
“The proceedings
against the petitioners (Mita and Tapan) will be an abuse of the process
of law. The FIR, along with all proceedings against the petitioners, is
quashed,” Justice Ahluwalia said in his three-page order.
Quoting a Supreme
Court ruling, Justice Ahluwalia said: “The ultimate object of justice is
to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent.
The tendency of implicating all immediate relations is also not
uncommon. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious while
dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic matrimonial
cases.”
Fetured Links
Legal experts in
the city welcomed Justice Ahluwalia’s view, which they said had
highlighted the tendency of a section of women and their family members
to misuse article 498A and lodge false complaints against in-laws.
“If a woman lodges
a complaint of torture against her husband or any of her in-laws within
seven years of marriage, police will have to arrest the accused first.
No investigation is needed to arrest the accused or family members. Many
women misuse the law to falsely implicate their husbands and in-laws,”
said lawyer and former mayor Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya.
Maumita, a
resident of Khardah, on the northern fringes of the city, had married
Atanu in December 2002. The couple, who had been living at Atanu’s house
in Sodepur, have two daughters — Arunima, 7, and Archisha, 5.
In December 2012, Maumita had lodged a complaint of torture against her husband, sister-in-law Mita and her husband Tapan.
Mita and Tapan —
the couple got married in 1983 — live at Sinthee, around 12km from
Atanu’s house. They moved a petition in the high court, seeking quashing
of the proceedings against them.
The couple’s
lawyer Debabrata Chatterjee submitted: “Maumita had complained that she
had been regularly subjected to mental and physical torture by my
clients. Is it possible? Mita and her husband have their own family. Why
will they go to Sodepur regularly and torture Maumita?”
The judge
observed: “It’s a fact that Mita and Tapan lived far way from the
complainant’s house. The sister, who got married 19 years before her
brother’s wedding, had nothing to do with the brother’s matrimonial
affairs.”
-1999-cd.jpg)
0 comments: