Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said family members and relatives of a husband cannot be roped in an accused in a dowry harassment case on the basis of vague, general and omnibus allegations as it would amount to the abuse of the process of law.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed an appeal filed by Mainoddin against the Karnataka High Court's order declining any relief to him.

The appellant was younger brother of husband of the complainant.

He contended the only allegation made against him in the last paragraph of the complaint is that all the family members of the husband joined together and used foul language against the complainant of not getting dowry from her family.

"Having perused the FIR and also the chargesheet, we find that there are general and omnibus allegations against the family members of the husband of the complainant-respondent no.2," the bench noted.

The bench pointed out it is already well settled by this court in the case of 'Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State of UP and Anr' (2012) and also in the case of 'Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors vs State of Bihar & Ors' (2022), that such vague, general and omnibus allegations against the family members/relatives implicating them in matrimonial disputes are an abuse of process of law.

The bench accordingly allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings pending before the Principal Civil Judge and CJM, Vijayapur as also the FIR registered with Police Station Golagumbaz, Vijayapur, District Vijayapur qua the appellant only. 

In his plea, the appellant said he is an engineer by profession. He was not at all staying with accused No 1, his brother Ameenuddin. He submitted that he is working abroad and therefore there is no question of harassing or ill-treating the complainant.

He further submits that there are no material against him and a false case has foisted against the entire family members just to harass them. 

The High Court had on November 28, 2019 dismissed his plea observing that similar petitions filed by co accused had already been rejected with liberty to file discharge application before the appropriate court.