S.498A IPC | MP High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Husband's Relatives Upon Noting Allegations Lacked Specificity Such As Date & Time Of Dowry Demand

Citing the lack of 'specific' allegations in the F.I.R. as well as the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a case registered against the close relatives of the complainant's husband for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

The single judge bench of Justice Maninder S. Bhatti pointed out that the petitioners, i.e., mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant, were not residing with the complainant at the relevant time. The complainant submitted that the petitioners used to visit her at the house where she lived along with her husband. During such visits, the petitioners allegedly demanded dowry from her to secure their financial interests.

“…There are no particulars like specific date and time when the complaint was subjected to the demand of dowry. As per complainant own showing the present petitioners were not residing with the present complainant but the complainant made an effort to demonstrate that the present petitioners used to visit her at place. The said particulars have not been disclosed by the complainant…”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur explained.

According to Justice M.S. Bhatti, deep scrutiny of the case revealed that there were only 'omnibus and bald allegations' against the petitioners as evident from the F.I.R and Section 161 statements. When it is not disputed that the complainant and the accused relatives were living in two separate places, 'specific allegations' should have been made against the petitioners as enunciated in various landmark judgments of the Supreme Court, the single-judge bench noted.

Terming the allegations as vague and general, the High Court found that the pending proceedings against the petitioners are unsustainable. The F.I.R, chargesheet and pursuant proceedings before Judicial Magistrate First Class Gauharganj (Raisen District) was accordingly quashed.

The prosecution submitted that the mother-in-law of the complainant did not allow her to keep her belongings at the marital home for long. The complainant stayed there for two months after marriage; she moved to Rachna Nagar along with her husband afterwards. However, she was subjected to harassment and manhandling by her husband there. According to the F.I.R., the petitioners who occasionally visited the complainant also subjected her to cruelty by demanding Rs 5 Lakhs as dowry.

The counsel appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Abhigya Verma, contended that his clients were falsely arraigned in the case merely because of the close relations they have with the complainant's husband. The counsel also placed reliance on various apex court decisions to convince the court that the allegations pertaining to the offence, as found in the F.I.R and statements, are vague and not specific.

The state tried argued that no interference is warranted as of now and the allegations must be tested at the stage of evidence later.

Agreeing with the counsel appearing for the petitioners, the court noted that though the statements of the complainant and her parents are identical, those statements do not have specific allegations. Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010), Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2012) and Kahakashan Kausar alias Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141] were extensively relied upon by the High Court before pronouncing the decision in this case. 

Accordingly, the case was quashed.

Advocate Abhigya Verma represented the petitioners. Government Advocate C.S Parmar appeared for the State. Respondent No.2, who is the original complainant, did not enter appearance in the criminal appeal.

Case Title: Smt. Geetababi Khambra V. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr..

Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 59501 of 2021

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 25

Click Here To Read/ Download Order