The plenary nature’’

“The plenary nature’’ of the quashing power vested with the HC, “warrants
its resort sparingly and in deserving cases only,’’ the bench said it its
August 23 judgment.
The woman who filed the FIR was married in 2001 and marital discords led
to “multiple proceedings’’ and the FIR lodged last October with the Juhu
police in which she said her parents had incurred expenses worth Rs 7 crore
for her marriage and also Rs 15 lakh on the honeymoon. The trio said the
allegations were “false, baseless and vague’’. Jha argued that the case was
yet another manifestation of clear abuse of section 498A, IPC. While,
government lawyer Sangita Shinde and Satyavrat Joshi appearing for the
housewife who lodged the FIR, opposed the quashing plea with Joshi saying
that the “tenor of the FIR as a whole ought to be considered’’ and that there
were “specific allegations which implicate the petitioners.’’
But the HC found none. The HC said,” It is indisputable that the cruelty
under section 498A of IPC has a specific legal connotation. Ordinary
quarrels, differences of views and wear and tear of life, which every home
witnesses, do not fall within the mischief of cruelty which section 498A of
IPC punishes. Nor, every illtreatment or harassment falls within its dragnet.
To fall within the tentacles of section 498A, the married woman must have
been subjected to cruelty which would drive the woman to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, or with a view
to coerce her or any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand of
property,’’ said the HC.