New Delhi:The Supreme Court has quashed a dowry harassment case against a judicial officer, his architect brother, and mother lodged on the complaint by the wife of his other brother. The woman had lodged an FIR against her mother-in-law and two brothers-in-law in 2013.
The apex court noted that allegations levelled by the woman against her mother-in-law with regard to how she taunted her when she wore a maxi is "wholly insufficient" to constitute cruelty in terms of Section 498A of the IPC. A three-judge bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar and S V N Bhatti noted the complainant’s motives were not clean in so far as her brothers-in-law are concerned.
The court stated that “she clearly wanted to wreak vengeance against her in-laws” and that there were "glaring inconsistencies and discrepancies" in the complainant's version. The court stated that given the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is of the opinion that complainant’s allegations against the appellants, are wholly insufficient and, prima facie, do not make out a case against them.
The bench allowed an appeal filed by Abhishek and others against the Madhya Pradesh High Court order and quashed the FIR lodged by his sister-in-law against them in 2013, four years after she left her matrimonial home.
In its judgment delivered on August 31, the court said, “Permitting the criminal process to go on against the appellants in such a situation would, therefore, result in clear and patent injustice. This was a fit case for the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings”.
The bench noted that instances of a husband’s family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin and there are many precedents in this regard.
The top court said the complainant's interactions with the in-laws were only three to four times during the festival. Appellant Abhishek became judicial officer six to seven months after her marriage in 2007 while Sourabh, an architect, was stationed in Delhi since 2007.
The bench expressed surprise on the complainant’s claim that at the time of Abhishek's marriage, he demanded a car and Rs 2 lakh in cash from the complainant's parents. “Why would he make such a demand for dowry, even if he was inclined to commit such an illegality, from his sister-in-law at the time of his own marriage? This is rather incongruous and difficult to comprehend”, the bench stated.
The top court noted that the complainant’s “allegations are mostly general and omnibus in nature, without any specific details as to how and when her brothers-in-law and mother-in-law, who lived in different cities altogether, subjected her to harassment for dowry”. It said that the complainant did nothing whatsoever after leaving her matrimonial home in February 2009 and filed a complaint in 2013 alleging dowry harassment, soon after her husband initiated divorce proceedings.
Also Read:‘Might set a wrong precedent', says SC; indicates its reservation on order to put Gautam Navlakha under house arrest
The bench mentioned that her allegations are "so far-fetched and improbable" that no prudent person can conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against them.
