The Supreme Court on Tuesday said courts must exercise caution in dowry harassment cases to prevent misuse of law and avoid unnecessary trouble to innocent family members observing a tendency to implicate husband's kin.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh said a mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement, should be nipped in the bud.

"It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution," it said.

The top court, therefore, said courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.

The observations came when the SC set aside an order of the Telangana High Court that had refused to quash a dowry harassment case against a man, his parents and other family members lodged by the wife.

The top court said inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the state.

"However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives against wife) of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife," the bench said.

The apex court said making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, would lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encourage the use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and her family.

"Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them," the apex court said.

It went on to add, "We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding." Observing such cases like the one at hand should not be encouraged, the bench said the insertion of Section 498A was meant for the protection of a woman subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry.

"However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the wife are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that the husband harassed her and that appellant in-laws instigated him to do so, the wife has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations," the bench said.

While quashing the FIR, the top court said the complaint was filed by the wife with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against the husband and his family members.

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.