The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that vague and unsubstantiated claims against in-laws, particularly those lacking specific details, are insufficient grounds for initiating criminal prosecution. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum emphasized this principle while quashing proceedings against Abeda, her husband Mohammad Runkuddin Jumna, and five other family members. The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Tehseen Begum, their daughter-in-law, which led to an FIR registered by the women's police station.
The court's decision was based on the observation that Tehseen Begum's complaint primarily targeted her husband, Nooruddin Jumna, with allegations of neglect, marital discord, and harassment. Justice Magadum noted that the complainant herself acknowledged a family partition and separate residence from her in-laws, indicating they did not share a common household. Furthermore, the complaint highlighted Nooruddin's prolonged stays in the Gulf region as the primary cause of marital issues.
The allegations against the in-laws were deemed unsubstantiated due to the absence of specific details regarding date, time, place, or particular actions. The court asserted that merely stating the in-laws "instigated" the husband or used abusive language, without providing concrete instances, is inadequate to establish a foundation for criminal prosecution.
In light of these findings, Justice Magadum concluded that continuing the proceedings against the petitioners would constitute an abuse of the legal process. The court underscored that if it were to decline exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the petitioners would be unnecessarily subjected to the complexities and burdens of a criminal trial.
This ruling aligns with previous judgments where the Karnataka High Court has quashed cases against in-laws based on vague or omnibus allegations. The court has repeatedly cautioned against the indiscriminate inclusion of distant relatives or parents-in-law in matrimonial disputes unless there is clear, specific, and compelling evidence. In a similar case, the High Court quashed a dowry harassment case against a husband's parents and a relative, emphasizing that the allegations lacked substantial evidence and legal basis. The court has also maintained that criminal complaints filed by a wife after receiving a divorce notice from her husband hold less significance.
These decisions reflect a growing concern about the misuse of dowry and domestic violence laws to harass family members in matrimonial disputes. The High Court has emphasized the need to prevent the abuse of the legal system and ensure fair treatment for all parties involved. While protecting women from genuine harassment and cruelty, the courts are also vigilant against the misuse of legal provisions to settle personal scores or to level unsubstantiated accusations against in-laws. Such caution ensures that criminal law is not weaponized as a tool for harassment in marital conflicts, balancing the rights of the complainant with the need to prevent injustice.
