Justice G. Girish observed that there are multiple incidents of matrimonial cruelty attributed against the husband's parents and that the same are prima facie sufficient to attract the offence under Section 498A IPC. It was opined that the veracity of the same are to be tested in trial and the case cannot be quashed at the present stage.

“the petitioners…treated her as a servant, and used to introduce her to others as a servant without wages at their residence. It is also alleged that the above petitioners often insulted her by saying that the second petitioner was afflicted with cancer since the de facto complainant came to their residence. The de facto complainant is also said to have been depicted by the above petitioners as a cancer in their life. There are also multiple incidents of matrimonial cruelty attributed against the petitioners… in connection with the mental torture allegedly perpetrated upon the de facto complainant for her failure to bring sufficient dowry,” the Court noted.

It, however, quashed the case against the husband's elder brother after noting that only vague, collective allegations have been made against him.

The Court was considering two petitions preferred by the brother-in-law and the parents-in-law of the complainant, who had accused them of cruelty. They, along, with the complainant's husband are alleged to have committed the offences under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation was that the accused subjected the complainant to cruelty saying that she brought insufficient dowry. She had preferred a complaint before the police, who later filed the final report in the case.

The petitioners contended that they were innocent in the case and that the allegations against them were vague. They thus sought to quash the criminal proceedings.

The complainant had made serious allegations against the petitioners, including that she was subjected to forceful abortion of her pregnancy. The Court noted that the gynecologist, who had terminated the pregnancy had given a statement that it was done with the consent of the complainant.

As regards the other allegations, the Court observed that the truth or falsity of the same can only be proven during trial. It was of the view that the circumstances thus do not warrant quashing of the criminal proceedings against the parents-in-law.

The Court allowed the plea preferred by the brother-in-law but dismissed the case preferred by the parents-in-law. It, however, directed the Magistrate, where the case was pending, to insist on their personal appearance only when necessary, considering their advanced ages.

Counsel for the petitioners: Geo Paul, S. Ashok Kumar, C.R. Pramod, Jacob George Pallath, Naveen T.U., Harikrishnan A.S., Akshai K.R., C.B. Gautham

Counsel for the respondents: R. Harikrishnan (Kambisseril), Denny Varghese, Lijo Raju, Neeraj Narayan