The Delhi High Court in Sandeep Pathak and Ors Vs Lalitha Tiwari quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC (Section 85 BNS), Section 406 IPC (Section 316 BNS), and the DV Act.

The Court held that vague and omnibus allegations cannot establish cruelty or criminal breach of trust. It also ruled that DV Act proceedings cannot survive after divorce, as the domestic relationship ceases.

Further, the Court found that the wife filed proceedings after the divorce decree. Therefore, it treated the case as an abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS).

“45. From the entire allegations as discussed above, it emerges that the essential ingredients of Section 498A IPC are not made out from the Complaint made by Respondent No.2.”

“46. In light of the above findings, it is concluded that it is clearly a case which comes in the category of abuse of the process of law, meriting quashing of the FIR.”

“52. Thus, aside from omnibus allegations, no prima facie case of entrustment of jewellery has been made out. Thus, no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out in the Complaint against the Petitioners.”

“55. As discussion above in detail, there is not an iota of even a prima facie case of cruelty or of harassment of the Complainant by the Petitioners. There is also no element of cruelty or entrustment made out from the facts alleged by the Respondent in her Complaint. Moreover, as discussed above from the facts, when comprehensively considered, reflects that it is a case of abuse of process of law, justifying the quashing of the FIR and the Chargesheet filed therein.”

“69. Thus, the chronology of events clearly indicates that the criminal and DV proceedings were initiated after the marital relationship had already been dissolved by a decree of divorce, and is a subsequent attempt to revive matrimonial disputes through criminal proceedings, which is clearly an abuse of the process of law and an afterthought.”

“70. In view of the above discussion, the Complaint under the DV Act is based on the same vague and omnibus allegations which have already been examined in the context of the FIR. Further, the Complaint has been instituted after the decree of divorce dated 05.09.2012, which has attained finality, thereby bringing the domestic relationship between the parties to an end. In the absence of any specific allegations of domestic violence and a subsisting domestic relationship, continuation of the present proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.”

Decision

The Court allowed both petitions. It quashed the FIR and DV Act complaint, held that the allegations were vague and legally insufficient. It also held that the domestic relationship had ended due to divorce.

Therefore, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC ( Section 528 BNSS).

Citation :

Other Sources :

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150