Police often prejudiced, casual in Section 498A cases: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently slammed the Maharashtra police for their “casual” and “prejudicial” approach in investigating complaints under Section 498-A (cruelty to married women) of the Indian Penal Code, cautioning that such apathy is dangerous and could harm genuine victims [Ajay Rajendra Khare and Ors v State of Maharashtra and Ors]..A Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh was examining a petition to quash a cruelty case against a family of six. The Court found that there were serious lapses in the police investigation.Instead of visiting the places where the alleged cruelty occurred, namely Kharghar and Manmad, the investigating officer had drawn a spot panchnama at the complainant’s father’s house in Nanded, a location unrelated to the allegations.The officer also failed to record statements from any independent witnesses or neighbours, relying solely on repetitive statements from the complainant’s family.“This shows that nowadays even the police are not taking proper precautions and making appropriate investigation when it comes to offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. This offence is now taken in a casual manner by the police under the presumption with which they are dealing many times with the First Information Reports and this is one of such an example of misuse. Thus, these police officers are proceeding with the investigation with some presumptions or with prejudicial mind. This attitude is dangerous because genuine cases would suffer due to such apathy," the Court observed. .The case stemmed from a complaint lodged by a woman in Nanded, alleging that she was subjected to harassment and physical cruelty for dowry within two months of her marriage on January 28, 2024. She claimed that her husband and his family repeatedly demanded ₹20 lakh and that she was assaulted and forced out of the matrimonial home on March 28. Pursuant to her allegations, an FIR was registered at Vimantal Police Station, Nanded, under Sections 498-A (cruelty to married woman), 323 (hurt), 504 (intentional insult to provoke peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention to commit criminal acts) of the Indian Penal Code..Subsequently, the husband and five of his family members , including his parents, sister, brother-in-law, and cousin, moved the High Court seeking the quashing of the criminal proceedings.Their counsel contended that the complaint was driven by personal motives and pointed out that the complainant had concealed her employment as a senior executive in a Pune-based health insurance firm.The counsel further argued that the couple had cohabited for only about 40 days. She also placed on record information obtained from Kharghar Police Station, revealing that the complainant had initially declined to file a formal complaint when she first visited the station..The Court noted that there were several inconsistencies in the woman’s version of the story."It is hard to believe then that she states that within those two days even the sister-in-law started saying that the informant should be killed by pressing pillow on her face and applicant No.1’s second marriage should be performed”, the Court added.It also pointed out that the complainant had misrepresented her employment status."She is silent about her own occupation as Medical Practitioner and in service or her even qualification,” the Court noted, adding that she had been addressed with the doctor (Dr.) designation in official police records and RTI replies..Subsequently, it found the police investigation inadequate and lacking objectivity.“The investigation has been done by Mr. M.M. Lone... When the alleged acts of cruelty had taken place at Kharghar, Mumbai or Manmad, Nashik, he has not taken efforts to visit the place and make inquiry with the neighbouring persons,” the Bench said.Instead, the spot inspection was carried out at the woman’s father’s home in Nanded.It further stated that this case represents a "classic example of the misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code."Citing the lack of credible evidence and improper investigation, the court concluded that continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of process and quashed the proceedings against all six accused..Advocate Rashmi S Kulkarni appeared for the husband and his familyAdditional Public Prosecutor AR Kale appeared for the StateAdvocate MM Parghane appeared for the wife.[Read Order]