Supreme Court quashes dowry harassment charges against in-laws due to lack of specific evidence: Mirza Iqbal vs. State of UP (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 December 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 734

Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J. and Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can family members be implicated in dowry harassment cases based on general accusations? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the in-laws of a deceased woman were accused of dowry harassment and murder. The court emphasized that vague and general allegations are insufficient to prosecute family members and that specific evidence of their involvement is necessary. This judgment highlights the importance of not implicating family members in matrimonial disputes without concrete proof. The judgment was authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy, with Justice Hrishikesh Roy concurring.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Rushda Nisar, who was married to Mirza Ismail Beg on December 25, 2015. According to the complaint filed by Rushda’s father, Nisar Ullah, Rushda was subjected to continuous dowry demands by her husband, Mirza Ismail Beg, her brother-in-law, Mirza Iqbal (Appellant 1), her sister-in-law, Hifza, and her mother-in-law, Sammi (Appellant 2). The demands included a four-wheeler vehicle and Rs. 10,00,000 in cash. When these demands were not met, Rushda was allegedly beaten and threatened. Nisar Ullah also claimed that he had given Rs. 2,70,000 in cash, but the demands continued. On July 24, 2018, Rushda was allegedly killed by the accused by putting a noose around her neck and hanging her. Nisar Ullah, upon learning of the incident, travelled from Surat and filed a complaint at PS-Kotwali, District Gorakhpur. The appellants, Mirza Iqbal and Sammi, were charged under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants, Mirza Iqbal and Sammi, filed a quashing petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), seeking to quash the chargesheet and the cognizance order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The High Court disposed of the petition, directing the appellants to surrender and apply for bail, which was to be considered as per the law. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court against this order.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married 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 304-B of the IPC: This section addresses dowry death, stating,
  “Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called ‘dowry death’, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.”
• Section 323 of the IPC: This section deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 504 of the IPC: This section addresses intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
• Section 506 of the IPC: This section deals with punishment for criminal intimidation.
• Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: These sections prohibit the giving or taking of dowry.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The 1st appellant, Mirza Iqbal, argued that he was working as a cashier at ICICI Bank in Khalilabad, which is 40 km away from Gorakhpur, where the incident occurred. He submitted that he was on duty at the bank on the day of the incident, from 9:49 a.m. to 6:25 p.m. and therefore, could not have been involved in the incident at 8 p.m. in Gorakhpur. He also stated that his mother, the 2nd appellant, was living with him in Khalilabad since 2017.
• The appellants contended that the allegations against them were vague and omnibus, lacking any specific details of their involvement. They argued that the chargesheet was filed without proper investigation, despite their affidavit to the Senior Superintendent of Police providing evidence of their alibi, including bank records and CCTV footage.
• The appellants argued that the deceased was suffering from mental depression and was undergoing treatment for the same.
• The appellants relied on the judgment in Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. [2012] 10 SCC 741, where the Supreme Court quashed proceedings against family members of the husband due to vague allegations.

Arguments by the Respondents:

• The respondents (State of Uttar Pradesh and the complainant) argued that the names of the appellants were mentioned in the complaint and chargesheet, making it inappropriate to quash the proceedings at this stage. They contended that the appellants should prove their innocence during the trial.
• The respondents claimed that all the accused, including the appellants, had demanded dowry and had a common intention to cause injuries and kill the deceased. They pointed to the postmortem report, which indicated asphyxia as the cause of death, as evidence of the crime.
• The respondents argued that the quash petition filed by the sister-in-law of the deceased was already dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in not quashing the charges against the appellants based on the allegations in the complaint and chargesheet.
2. Whether the allegations against the appellants were vague and omnibus, lacking specific details of their involvement in the alleged offences.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the precedent set in Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. [2012] 10 SCC 741, emphasizing that family members should not be implicated in dowry harassment cases based on vague and general allegations. The court observed that in the cited case, it was held that a large number of family members are shown in the FIR by casually mentioning their names and the contents do not disclose their active involvement, as such, taking cognizance of the matter against them was not justified.
• The Court considered the legal provisions of Section 498-A, Section 304-B, Section 323, Section 504 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to determine if the charges against the appellants were sustainable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of specific evidence against the appellants and the presence of vague and omnibus allegations. The court emphasized the need to avoid implicating family members in matrimonial disputes without concrete proof of their involvement. The court also took into consideration the alibi presented by the 1st appellant, which was supported by bank records.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the lack of specific evidence against the appellants. The final decision was reached by emphasizing the need for concrete proof of involvement in dowry harassment cases, rather than relying on vague and general accusations.

The court stated, “A perusal of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, pursuant to which a crime was registered, does not indicate any specific allegations by disclosing the involvement of the appellants.” The court also observed, “Even in the statement of 2nd respondent recorded by the police and also in the final report filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., except omnibus and vague allegations, there is no specific allegation against the appellants to show their involvement for the offences alleged.” The court further added, “Having regard to the case of the appellants and the material placed on record, we are of the considered view that except vague and bald allegations against the appellants, there are no specific allegations disclosing the involvement of the appellants to prosecute them for the offences alleged.”

Key Takeaways

• Family members should not be implicated in dowry harassment cases based on vague and general allegations.
• Specific evidence of involvement is necessary to prosecute family members in such cases.
• Courts should not mechanically take cognizance of cases where allegations are omnibus and lack specific details.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that family members should not be subjected to trial unless there is concrete evidence of their involvement in the alleged crime.
• This ruling may lead to more cautious approaches in filing FIRs and chargesheets in dowry harassment cases, ensuring that only those with specific involvement are prosecuted.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the chargesheet and the cognizance order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the appellants.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that family members of the husband cannot be implicated in dowry harassment cases based on vague and omnibus allegations. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that specific evidence of their involvement is necessary for prosecution. This judgment reinforces the need for a cautious approach in such cases, ensuring that only those with concrete evidence against them are subjected to trial. This case does not change the previous position of law but reinforces it by following the precedent in Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. [2012] 10 SCC 741.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mirza Iqbal @ Golu & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. quashed the charges against the brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, emphasizing that vague and omnibus allegations are insufficient to prosecute family members in dowry harassment cases. The court highlighted the need for specific evidence of involvement and reinforced the principle that family members should not be subjected to trial unless there is concrete proof of their involvement. This ruling serves as a crucial reminder for law enforcement and the judiciary to avoid mechanical implication of family members and to ensure that only those with specific evidence against them are prosecuted.