The Delhi High Court recently expressed concern over the increasing trend of implicating all relatives of a husband in cases filed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with cruelty towards wives. The observation was made by a division bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta while hearing a case involving a man whose appointment as a sub-inspector in Delhi Police was delayed because he was named in an FIR filed by his sister-in-law.
The court noted that many such complaints are often settled out of court, indicating that these cases are sometimes filed in the heat of the moment over minor issues. While acknowledging the significance of Section 498A in protecting women from dowry harassment, the court emphasized the need to prevent its misuse.
“There is a growing tendency among women to include all the husband’s relatives in complaints filed under Section 498A, including minors,” the court observed. “Many of these complaints are eventually resolved between families and are often filed impulsively over trivial matters. While the purpose of this law is important, its misuse cannot be ignored.”
In this particular case, the petitioner had successfully cleared all exams for the position of sub-inspector in the Delhi Police, as per the recruitment notice issued by the Staff Selection Commission in 2017. However, his appointment was put on hold because he was named in a dowry harassment FIR filed by his sister-in-law against his brother and other family members.
The court pointed out that, in the charge sheet, the petitioner’s name was mentioned in Column 12, which typically indicates that there was no substantial evidence of his involvement. “Given that the investigation did not establish his involvement, he should have been considered suitable for appointment. Being named in an FIR, without evidence, cannot be grounds for withholding public employment,” the court remarked.
The court further clarified that just being named in an FIR does not give an employer the right to indefinitely delay an applicant’s employment, especially when the person has not been summoned by the court or proven guilty. The bench noted that both the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Commissioner of Police were overly influenced by the FIR’s existence, despite the lack of evidence against the petitioner.
With these observations, the Delhi High Court ordered the authorities to proceed with the petitioner’s appointment as a sub-inspector in the Delhi Police.
Case Title: Vikram Ruhal vs Delhi Police
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
