Supreme Court Quashes Dowry Harassment Case Against In-Laws: Priyanka Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: May 8, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 428

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Can a criminal case against in-laws for dowry harassment be quashed if the allegations seem like a retaliatory tactic? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, emphasizing the need to protect individuals from vexatious and unwarranted criminal prosecution. This case involved a wife who filed a dowry harassment case against her in-laws after a divorce petition was filed in Sweden. The court, after reviewing the facts and circumstances, quashed the criminal proceedings against the in-laws, stating that the allegations appeared to be an afterthought. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

Case Background

The case revolves around a complaint filed by Nikita (Respondent No. 2) against her sister-in-law (Priyanka Mishra, Appellant No. 1), mother-in-law (Nisha @ Sursar Devi, Appellant No. 2), and father-in-law (Pushpendra Mishra, Appellant No. 3), along with her husband. The complaint alleged offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 34 of the IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Nikita claimed that her in-laws and husband demanded a dowry of INR 50,00,000 in cash and fifteen tolas of gold ornaments. She also stated that her father had already given INR 5,00,000 in cash, fifteen tolas of gold jewellery, a diamond ring worth INR 50,000, clothes worth INR 60,000 for her husband, and spent INR 30,00,000 in total on the marriage. Nikita alleged that after the marriage on February 3, 2014, her in-laws started harassing her for more dowry. She also claimed that they taunted her that her husband would have fetched INR 1,00,00,000 as dowry. She further alleged that they forcibly got her abortion done in Hyderabad. In March 2016, she was taken by her father to her parental home.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants, Priyanka Mishra, Nisha @ Sursar Devi, and Pushpendra Mishra, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR) registered against them. The High Court dismissed their petition on April 30, 2019. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman. It states, “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34 of the IPC: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
• Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act: This section deals with demanding dowry. It states, “If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.”

Arguments

Submissions by the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that the respondent, Nikita, had hardly lived at her matrimonial home. She moved to Hyderabad shortly after the marriage and then to London and Sweden with her husband.
• They contended that there were no specific allegations against any of the appellants.
• The appellants pointed out that Nikita’s pregnancy and stay with her husband in Hyderabad indicated cordial relations.
• They argued that the allegation of a forced abortion was false, as no complaint was lodged at the time.
• The appellants highlighted that Nikita and her husband had filed for divorce in Sweden on July 9, 2018 and that she filed the criminal case after returning to India as a retaliatory measure when the husband refused to withdraw the divorce case.
• The appellants also pointed out discrepancies in Nikita’s statements under Section 161 and Section 164 of the CrPC.
• They relied on Rajesh Sharma v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 10 SCC 472, which had issued directions to prevent the misuse of Section 498-A of the IPC.
• The appellants submitted that the criminal prosecution was an abuse of the process of law.

Submissions by the Respondent No. 2:

• The respondent contended that the allegations were proved during the investigation, and the Magistrate had taken cognizance against all accused, including the appellants.
• The respondent relied on State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335, arguing that the veracity of allegations cannot be examined at the investigation stage.
• The respondent also cited Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana, (1998) 3 SCC 309, and Mahendra K C v State of Karnataka, (2022) 2 SCC 129, to emphasize that the High Court should not test the veracity of allegations at the stage of investigation.
• The respondent referred to Central Bureau of Investigation v A Ravishankar Prasad, (2009) 6 SCC 351, to argue that the High Court should not quash charges when the trial is at an advanced stage.
• The respondent cited S Mahaboob Basha v State of Karnataka, (2014) 10 SCC 244, to argue that independent witnesses are not required to prove cruelty.
• The respondent relied on Rupali Devi v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 5 SCC 384, to argue that courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving the matrimonial home also have jurisdiction.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the following key question:

• Whether the FIR against the appellants (in-laws) should be quashed given the facts and circumstances of the case, including the lack of specific allegations, the respondent’s brief stay at the matrimonial home, and the divorce proceedings in Sweden.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Rajesh Sharma v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 10 SCC 472 – The Court had issued certain directions to prevent the misuse of Section 498-A of the IPC. (Supreme Court of India)
• State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 – The Court held that if looking at the FIR, it cannot be said that prima facie no case is made out against the applicants, and that veracity of the allegations cannot be gone into at the stage of investigation. (Supreme Court of India)
• Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana, (1998) 3 SCC 309 – The Court noticed that on account of not satisfying the demand of goods, right from the next date of marriage, the wife was repeatedly taunted, maltreated and mentally tortured by being called ugly. (Supreme Court of India)
• Mahendra K C v State of Karnataka, (2022) 2 SCC 129 – The Court stated that under Section 482 of the Code, the test to be applied by the High Court is as to whether the allegation(s) in the complaint as they stand, without adding or detracting thereto, prima facie establish the ingredients of the offence(s) alleged. (Supreme Court of India)
• Central Bureau of Investigation v A Ravishankar Prasad, (2009) 6 SCC 351 – The Court held that the High Court should not quash charges when the trial is at an advanced stage. (Supreme Court of India)
• S Mahaboob Basha v State of Karnataka, (2014) 10 SCC 244 – The Court held that in a case concerning cruelty meted out to the wife, to bring home the guilt of the accused, it was not essential to examine the independent witnesses. (Supreme Court of India)
• Rupali Devi v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 5 SCC 384 – The Court held that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498-A of the Penal Code. (Supreme Court of India)
• Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 – The Court held that the rejection of the prayer for quashing the criminal case against the in-laws of the complainant-wife therein was unjustified. (Supreme Court of India)

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act: Deals with demanding dowry.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.
• Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Deals with examination of witnesses by police.
• Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Deals with recording of confessions and statements.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court distinguished the cases cited by the Respondent and followed the ratio of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599.

• Rajesh Sharma v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 10 SCC 472: *Mentioned in the context of misuse of Section 498-A of the IPC.* The court noted the directions issued in this case regarding the misuse of Section 498-A of the IPC.
• State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335: *Cited by the respondent, but the court distinguished it in the present factual scenario.* The Court found that the facts of the present case did not warrant the application of the principles laid down in this case.
• Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana, (1998) 3 SCC 309: *Cited by the respondent, but the court distinguished it in the present factual scenario.* The Court found that the facts of the present case did not warrant the application of the principles laid down in this case.
• Mahendra K C v State of Karnataka, (2022) 2 SCC 129: *Cited by the respondent, but the court distinguished it in the present factual scenario.* The Court found that the facts of the present case did not warrant the application of the principles laid down in this case.
• Central Bureau of Investigation v A Ravishankar Prasad, (2009) 6 SCC 351: *Cited by the respondent, but the court distinguished it in the present factual scenario.* The Court found that the facts of the present case did not warrant the application of the principles laid down in this case.
• S Mahaboob Basha v State of Karnataka, (2014) 10 SCC 244: *Cited by the respondent, but the court distinguished it in the present factual scenario.* The Court found that the facts of the present case did not warrant the application of the principles laid down in this case.
• Rupali Devi v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 5 SCC 384: *Cited by the respondent, but the court distinguished it in the present factual scenario.* The Court found that the facts of the present case did not warrant the application of the principles laid down in this case.
• Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599: *Followed by the court, for quashing the FIR against the in-laws.* The Court relied on this case to quash the FIR against the in-laws, emphasizing that general and omnibus allegations cannot force relatives of the complainant’s husband to undergo trial.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the FIR against the in-laws was influenced by several factors:

• Lack of Specific Allegations: The court noted that the allegations against the in-laws were vague and lacked specific details. The court observed that the allegations seemed far-fetched and did not inspire confidence.
• Brief Stay at Matrimonial Home: The court highlighted that the respondent, Nikita, had resided for less than three weeks at her matrimonial home. Her subsequent stay in Hyderabad, London, and Sweden with her husband indicated that the allegations against the in-laws were not credible.
• Retaliatory Tactic: The court found that the criminal case was a retaliatory tactic, as it was filed after the divorce proceedings were initiated in Sweden. The husband had also complained to the police about threats from the wife before she filed her complaint.
• Discrepancies in Statements: The court noted discrepancies in the statements of the respondent under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC, which further weakened her case.
• Protection Against Vexatious Litigation: The court emphasized the need to protect individuals from vexatious and unwarranted criminal prosecution. The court stated that the in-laws should not be put through the rigors of an eventual trial based on such vague and unsubstantiated allegations.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, concluded that the FIR against the in-laws was an abuse of the process of the court. The court emphasized the need to protect individuals from vexatious litigation and found that the allegations against the in-laws were not credible. The court stated, “From a plain but careful reading of the material brought on record, including the statements of Respondent No.2 under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code and also of other witnesses, the allegations insofar as they relate to the Appellants seem far-fetched and do not inspire confidence.” The Court also observed, “We think the same is a retaliatory tactic, inasmuch as the Appellants herein are concerned.” The court further noted, “In the present case, the facts are akin to the position that obtained in Kahkashan Kausar (supra). In light of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the firm opinion that the Appellants are to be protected against vexatious and unwarranted criminal prosecution, and from unnecessarily being put through the rigours of an eventual trial.”

Key Takeaways

• Protection from Vexatious Litigation: The judgment highlights the importance of protecting individuals from baseless criminal complaints, particularly in cases of dowry harassment.
• Specific Allegations Required: General and omnibus allegations against in-laws are not sufficient to sustain a criminal case; specific details and evidence are necessary.
• Retaliatory Motives: Courts will consider the context and timing of complaints to determine if they are filed as a retaliatory tactic.
• Importance of a Fair Trial: The judgment emphasizes that individuals should not be subjected to the rigors of a trial based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations.