Source: Jammu & Kashmir High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Rajnesh Oswal has deprecated the practice of implicating relatives of the husband as accused in proceedings under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) without specific allegations.   

• The Jammu & Kasmir High Court held in the case of Sumesh Chadha v. UT of J&K and Anr (2025). 

What was the Background of the Sumesh Chadha v. UT of J&K and Anr Case? 

• Sumesh Chadha is the petitioner in this case. He is a resident of Ludhiana and the maternal uncle of Kunwar Sood. 
• Kunwar Sood was married to Respondent No. 2 (Prerna Gupta). Their marriage was solemnized in November 2019. 
• The marriage between Kunwar Sood and Respondent No. 2 failed. The petitioner participated in reconciliation meetings in July 2023 in the United Kingdom. 
• Despite reconciliation attempts, the couple decided to part ways. Kunwar Sood filed for divorce through HM Courts and Tribunal Services in Harlow, UK. 
• The UK court issued a conditional divorce order declaring the marriage had broken down irretrievably. This was followed by a final divorce order. 
• Respondent No. 2 participated in the divorce proceedings in the UK court. 
• Later, Respondent No. 2 registered FIR at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu under Sections 498-A and 420 of IPC against the petitioner Sumesh Chadha. 
• Respondent No. 2 alleged that during her marriage, she was subjected to torture, cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws, and claimed that the petitioner had provoked her in-laws, resulting in acts of cruelty and humiliation. 
• One specific allegation involved the illegal withholding of jewelry/stridhan belonging to Respondent No. 2, which she claimed was retained at the petitioner's behest. 
• Respondent No. 2 claimed that the petitioner was nominated by the other accused persons to return her valuable jewelry and other items as agreed in an email, but these items were never returned. 
• Respondent No. 2 alleged that in May 2023, the petitioner's nephew (her husband) withdrew consent for her IVF treatment one week before final insemination, causing her significant emotional, physical, and financial distress. 
• The complainant also alleged that the petitioner arranged meetings in London in July 2023 under the guise of reconciliation but actually used these meetings to harass and extort money from her and her family. 
• Following these meetings, Kunwar Sood sent a divorce notice to Respondent No. 2. 
• The petitioner contended that the FIR was false and frivolous, filed against him only because he was nominated to hand over jewelry that was not in his possession. 
• Aggrieved by such actions the present petition has been filed before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The J & K High Court made several significant observations regarding the case: 
  • The High Court observed that all allegations in the FIR were primarily directed against Kunwar Sood (the husband) and his parents, not the petitioner Sumesh Chadha. 
  • The Court noted that the petitioner only came into the picture in July 2023, after relations between Respondent No. 2 and her husband had already deteriorated significantly. 
  • The High Court observed that no specific allegations were made against the petitioner in the complainant's application that led to the FIR. 
  • The Court determined that the petitioner appeared to have been arrayed as an accused only because he was nominated by the other accused for handing over jewelry/articles that were physically in the UK. 
  • The High Court observed that even in the statement recorded during investigation, there were no specific allegations against the petitioner except his participation in reconciliation meetings held in the UK. 
  • The Court noted that the petitioner seemed to have been included as an accused merely to pressure him to persuade his sister, nephew, and brother-in-law to return the complainant's jewelry and belongings. 
  • The High Court referenced Supreme Court precedents that have repeatedly deprecated the practice of implicating relatives of the husband as accused in proceedings under Section 498-A IPC without specific allegations. 
  • The Court observed that the FIR against the petitioner contained general and omnibus allegations that appeared to be an exaggerated version suggesting over-implication of the accused. 

What are the Provisions Related to Cruelty under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS)? 

About 

• Section 85 of BNS states: 
  • Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. 
    • Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 
  •  This provision was earlier covered under Section 498A of IPC. 

Landmark Judgement 

• Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2024): The Supreme Court in the case held that:  
  • Regarding General Allegations: The Supreme Court held that "allegations against the accused are general and omnibus in nature and that apart they are nothing but exaggerated versions invariably suggesting over implication of accused." 
  • Court's Duty in Section 482 Cases: The Supreme Court emphasized that courts have a duty "to consider the contentions that there is lack of specific allegations against the accused concerned to constitute the offence(s) alleged against a relative or that the implication was nothing but an over implication to pressurize the family of the husband to yield to the demands." 
  • Obligation to Consider Contentions: The Supreme Court held that "The Courts cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions," emphasizing that courts must examine claims of over-implication even if a chargesheet has already been filed.