Though Demand Of Dowry Punishable, Taunting For Giving Less Dowry Not A Penal Offence By Itself: Allahabad High Court

While quashing criminal complaints against the relatives of the husband, the Allahabad High Court observed that though the demand of dowry is a punishable offence, taunting for giving less dowry is not a penal offence by itself.

The Court held that allegations against the family members must be clear and unambiguous, highlighting the specific roles played by each member to attract criminal prosecution.

“The law contemplates demand of dowry as punishable, however, the taunting for giving less gifts by itself is not a penal offence. The demand alleged to have been made by the accused person is wholly vague in nature,” held Justice Vikram D. Chauhan.

Applicants pleaded that opposite party no.2 was the wife of Applicant no. 1, an FIR was filed against all of them under Section 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The wife had alleged that a car was demanded by the accused as dowry, and upon not fulfilment of the demand for dowry, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home and was allegedly administered medicines which made her sick.

The applicants stated that the wife had made no allegations of assault, and there was no injury report filed at any time. It was argued that the wife had made vague and general allegations against the married sister-in-law, brother-in-law and unmarried sister-in-law.

The Court held that vague allegations in complaints hamper the rights and ability of the accused to defend themselves and also create uncertainty for the defence effectively.

It relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, in which the Supreme Court held that power under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice when allegations in the FIR were absurd to the extent that no reasonable conclusion could be drawn from them.

The Court observed that the case under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were registered after the investigation officer submitted his report including the statements of the informant-wife, her father and her mother regarding the demand of dowry. However, no specific allegations outlining the roles of the applicants, other than the husband, had been pointed out in the statements given under Section 161 CrPC.

The Court held that since the informant, while alleging taunting and physical assault, had not given details of the offence and roles of the applicants, the criminal cases against them were not maintainable. Accordingly, criminal complaints against the informant-wife's married sister-in-law, brother-in-law, and unmarried sister-in-law were quashed.

Counsel for Applicant: Saquib Mukhtar

Counsel for Opposite Party: Pankaj Satsangi

Case Title: Shabban Khan And 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. ­ 36921 of 2018]

Click Here To Read/Download Order