Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on December 20, 2024, quashed a criminal case filed against a man’s parents, accused of dowry harassment and causing their daughter-in-law’s miscarriage. The court observed that the case was initiated with the ulterior motive of pressuring the husband to consent to a divorce and was weaponized in a personal discord.

A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Vishwanathan overturned the Bombay High Court's January 23, 2020, decision, which had dismissed a plea by Digamber and his wife seeking to quash the FIR. The FIR, lodged at Shivaji Nagar Police Station in Latur, accused the couple of offences under Sections 498-A, 312, 313, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

"In our view, only stating that cruelty has been committed by the appellants herein due to some reason, would not amount to the offence under Section 498-A of IPC being attracted," the bench said.

With regard to a specific incident relating to the miscarriage being caused by the appellants (the couple), the bench said, a bare perusal of the allegation and the analysis of the same when compared with the statement of the doctor revealed that even if the allegations were accepted at the face value, they did not prima facie make out a case against the appellants.

The appellants' son, also an accused in the case, had died during the pendency of the matter before the top court.

A complaint was filed against the couple alleging they used to inflict physical and mental injury upon their daughter-in-law for the birth of two daughters, after her marriage with their son in 2006. In 2018, the daughter-in-law started living separately. She alleged on November 28, 2016, the accused parents-in-law visited her and coerced her to eat something which resulted in miscarriage.

On May 20, 2019, a family court granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

The appellants' counsel argued that the FIR was filed as a pressure tactic to force their son into agreeing to a mutual consent divorce with the complainant. He contended that a plain reading of the FIR revealed the allegations to be absurd and inherently improbable. Furthermore, he pointed out that the divorce notice made no mention of the alleged incident.

On the other hand, the state counsel asserted that the allegations in the FIR disclosed a prima facie offence that warranted examination by the trial court. The complainant's counsel supported the state’s arguments.

Examining the matter, the bench said the allegations made by the complainant appeared to be vague as no specific instances of harassment were mentioned.

Court further observed that no specific role or allegation had been attributed to either of the appellants, and no particular incident of physical or mental cruelty was mentioned. It noted that only a general statement was made, alleging that physical and mental cruelty was inflicted because the complainant was unable to bear a male child.

Furthermore, it was merely mentioned that the appellants would instigate the husband to harass the complainant, but again, no specific or precise instances were mentioned as to how the appellants instigated their son and what acts were committed by him as a direct result of such instigation.

Relying upon recent decisions in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others Vs State of Telangana and Another (2024), Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others Vs State of Gujarat (2024), the bench said 'cruelty’ is not enough to constitute the offence, it must be done with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself.

With regard to miscarriage under Sections 312 and 313 of the IPC, the court noted that the appellants used to live in a village far from Latur. However, no reason was given in the FIR as to why the appellants and their son had visited the daughter-in-law's house in Latur on that day.

Furthermore, the court pointed out that there was not even a whisper in the FIR about the complainant conveying the news of the pregnancy to the appellants or their son.

"It is unusual that when the allegations under Sections 312 and 313 of IPC are levelled against the appellants, such an important fact surrounding her pregnancy and its knowledge to the appellants is not to be found in the FIR. It is categorically mentioned in the FIR that the appellants brought the poisoned food pre-made from their village and hence, it would mean that they would need to have prior knowledge about the pregnancy of the complainant. No such communication or intimation is alleged by the complainant in the FIR that would even remotely lead to the conclusion that the appellants were aware about the pregnancy of the complainant," the bench said.

Moreover, the court also noted that the notice of divorce was completely silent about the allegations raised in the FIR which was subsequently filed.

"These facts lead us to conclude that the proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive of pressurizing the son of the appellant herein to consent to the divorce according to the terms of the complainant and the proceedings were used as a weapon by the complainant in the personal discord between the couple," the bench said.

The court thus held that the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the appellants would result in an abuse of process of law.

The bench also held the approach of the High Court was erroneous as it had said allegations made by the complainant could not be presumed to be false and whether they were believable or not had to be examined by the Trial Court.

Referring to the principles laid down in the case of Bhajan Lal, the bench said, the allegations levelled in the complaint should at the very least be given a prima facie consideration.

"We find that this was a fit case wherein the High Court should have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings," the bench said while allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment.

Case Title: Digamber and Another Vs State of Maharashtra