Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has quashed a dowry harassment case against a woman and her two sons, a judicial officer and an architect, after finding "glaring inconsistencies and discrepancies" in the complaint by the wife of her other son. 

A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar and S V N Bhatti rejected a contention to dismiss the appellants' plea to quash the FIR as charge sheet has already been filed in the matter. 

"It is well settled that the High Court would continue to have the power to entertain and act upon a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR even when a chargesheet is filed by the police during the pendency of such petition," the bench said.

The court pointed out 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 precedents aplenty abound on this score. 

The bench allowed an appeal filed by Kusum Lala and others against the Madhya Pradesh HC's order and quashed the FIR lodged by her sister-in-law, Bhawna against them in 2013, four years after the complainant left her matrimonial home.

Bhawna got married to Nimish, who was into film editing in 2007. Soon after the marriage, they headed to  Mumbai. However, she left the matrimonial home in 2009. In 2013, she lodged the FIR, accusing her in-laws of dowry harassment, just four months before her husband filed a divorce petition.

Going through the facts of the case, the bench noted her interactions with the in-laws were only three four times during festivals. Sourabh, an architect was stationed in Delhi since 2007. Other appellant Abhishek, became judicial officer six to seven months after her marriage.

"Surprisingly, Bhawna alleges that at the time of his own marriage, Abhishek demanded that Bhawna and her parents should provide him with a car and Rs 2 lakhs in cash. Why he would 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 is rather incongruous and difficult to comprehend," the bench said.

The court said her 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. 

"Most damaging to Bhawna’s case is the fact that she did nothing whatsoever after leaving her matrimonial home in February, 2009, and filed a complaint in the year 2013 alleging dowry harassment, just before her husband instituted divorce proceedings," it said.

The court said her allegations are, are wholly insufficient and, prima facie, do not make out a case against the appellants. 

"Further, they are so farfetched and improbable that no prudent person can conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against them. 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 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings," the bench said.

Case Title: Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh