Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 07 February 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC 160
Judges: B. V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Are relatives always guilty in dowry harassment cases? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, examining the extent of culpability of family members in domestic disputes. The case involved allegations of dowry harassment and domestic violence where the appellants, relatives of the husband, were accused of pressuring the complainant. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized the need for specific allegations and evidence against each accused, cautioning against the misuse of criminal proceedings by indiscriminately implicating all family members. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.
Case Background
The case originated from a complaint filed by Premlata (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”) on 17.09.2021, at the Mahila Police Station, Bhuvanagiri. She alleged that at the time of her marriage to Samuel Suresh on 17.08.2016, her mother-in-law, Pathagadda, demanded Rs. 30 Lakhs as dowry, of which Rs. 10 Lakhs in cash and 15 tolas of gold were given. She further alleged that after five months of harmonious marriage, her husband, suspecting her character, began harassing her mentally and physically for an additional dowry of Rs. 10 Lakhs. According to the complainant, her mother-in-law, her mother-in-law’s younger sister, Geddam Jhansi (Appellant No.1), her brother-in-law, Sudheer, and the son of Geddam Jhansi, Geddam Sathyakama Jabali (Appellant No.2), pressured her to comply with her husband’s and mother-in-law’s demands, threatening her life if the dowry was not met. The complainant also mentioned that her mother organized panchayats to resolve the issues, but her husband continued the harassment.
Based on this complaint, FIR No. 54 of 2021 was registered under Sections 498A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and the two appellants. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed in C.C. No. 46 of 2022, pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhongir.
Additionally, the complainant filed another complaint on 20.09.2021, before the Protection Officer, Bhuvanagari, alleging cruelty and criminal intimidation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). She stated that her husband had asked her not to touch his clothes or enter the kitchen and had attempted to burn his socks because she had washed them. She also alleged that her husband influenced his friends to speak ill of her and that he had a girlfriend whom he intended to marry. She claimed that on 17.10.2020, she was beaten and pushed out of her matrimonial home.
Following this, a case under the DV Act, DVC No. 25 of 2021, was registered and is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhongir.
The husband had also filed a divorce proceeding before the Court of the Principal District Judge at Kanchipuram, registered as I.D.O.P. No. 44 of 2021, alleging neglect, insensitivity, incompatibility, concealment of facts, hostile attitude, refusal to consummate the marriage, harassment, and desertion since 10 April 2018.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 17.08.2016 | Marriage of Premlata and Samuel Suresh. |
| 5 months after marriage | Alleged start of harassment for additional dowry. |
| 10.04.2018 | Alleged date of desertion as per husband’s divorce petition. |
| 17.10.2020 | Alleged incident of being beaten and pushed out of the matrimonial house. |
| 17.09.2021 | Complaint filed by Premlata at Mahila Police Station, Bhuvanagiri. |
| 20.09.2021 | Complaint filed by Premlata before the Protection Officer, Bhuvanagari, under the DV Act. |
| 23.09.2021 | LW -07 has Register post under sub -section (1) of Section 41 A of Criminal Procedure Code to them, but A -1, A-2 & A -4 was Rejected the Post |
| 2021 | Husband instituted a divorce proceeding before the Court of the Principal District Judge at Kanchipuram |
| 03.02.2022 | Judgement and order passed by the Ld. Single Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana in Criminal Petition No. 1002 of 2022 |
| 04.04.2022 | Judgement and order passed by the Ld. Single Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana in Criminal Petition No. 3105 of 2022 |
Course of Proceedings
The appellants, Geddam Jhansi and Geddam Sathyakama Jabali, sought to quash the criminal proceedings against them in C.C. No. 46 of 2022 and DVC No. 25 of 2021 before the High Court of Telangana. The High Court declined to quash these proceedings, observing that there were prima facie allegations against the appellants that warranted a trial to prove their innocence.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s refusal, the appellants filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9556 of 2022 challenged the High Court’s order dated 04.04.2022 in Criminal Petition No. 3105 of 2022, while Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 428 of 2024 challenged the High Court’s order dated 03.02.2022 in Criminal Petition No. 1002 of 2022.
Legal Framework
The legal framework relevant to this case includes:
- Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with cruelty by husband or relatives of husband.
- Section 506 of the IPC: Deals with punishment for criminal intimidation.
- Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Prohibit the giving or taking of dowry.
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act): Provides protection to women from domestic violence.
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The section states:
“482. Saving of inherent powers of the High Court .—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
Arguments
The appellants argued that the allegations against them were vague and generalized, lacking specific overt acts that could establish criminal liability. They contended that the High Court failed to appreciate this aspect.
Appellants’ Submissions
- Vague and Generalized Allegations: The primary contention was that the allegations were broad and lacked specific details, making it impossible to attribute any particular criminal act to them.
- Lack of Overt Acts: They argued that there was no evidence of any direct action or involvement in the alleged dowry demands or harassment.
- Reliance on State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: The appellants likely cited this case to emphasize the principles for quashing FIRs/criminal proceedings where allegations do not prima facie constitute an offense or are absurd and improbable.
Complainant’s Submissions
- Pressure to Comply: The complainant alleged that the appellants, along with other family members, pressured her to act according to her husband’s and mother-in-law’s wishes.
- Threats and Harassment: She claimed that the appellants threatened her and participated in the harassment for not meeting dowry demands.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (Complainant) |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of Specific Allegations |
✓ Allegations are vague and generalized. ✓ No specific overt acts attributed to the appellants. ✓ Statements of witnesses are carbon copies and do not inspire confidence. |
✓ Appellants pressured the complainant to comply with her husband’s and mother-in-law’s wishes. ✓ Appellants were part of the collective harassment for dowry. |
| Absence of Direct Involvement |
✓ Appellants do not reside with the principal accused. ✓ No direct evidence linking appellants to dowry demands or physical harassment. |
✓ Appellants participated in meetings and panchayats where dowry demands were made. ✓ Appellants contributed to the overall environment of harassment and intimidation. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the allegations against the appellants are vague and generalized without specific overt acts attributed to them, thus, incapable of being fastened with criminal liability?
- Whether the High Court erred in declining to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellants?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the allegations against the appellants are vague and generalized? | Yes, the allegations are vague and generalized. | The court found that the allegations lacked specific details and overt acts directly attributable to the appellants, making it difficult to establish criminal liability. |
| Whether the High Court erred in declining to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellants? | Yes, the High Court erred. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have quashed the proceedings because the generalized allegations did not constitute a prima facie case against the appellants, and continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to reiterate the principles for quashing FIRs/criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, emphasizing that such powers can be exercised to prevent abuse of the court process or to secure the ends of justice. |
| Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to affirm that a petition for quashing an FIR is maintainable even after the charge sheet has been filed, reinforcing the High Court’s power under Section 482 of the CrPC to examine whether the alleged offenses are prima facie made out. |
| Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59 | Supreme Court of India | This case was referenced within the context of Anand Kumar Mohatta to support the position that the High Court can examine the charge sheet and other documents to determine if the offenses are prima facie established, even after the charge sheet is filed. |
| G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the principle that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court. |
| Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591 | Supreme Court of India | Cited along with G. Sagar Suri to reinforce the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC, which are not limited by the stage of the proceedings. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Party | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Vague and Generalized Allegations | Appellants | Accepted. The Court agreed that the allegations against the appellants were too general and lacked specific details to establish criminal liability. |
| Lack of Overt Acts | Appellants | Accepted. The Court found no evidence of direct action or involvement by the appellants in the alleged dowry demands or harassment. |
| Pressure to Comply | Complainant | Rejected. The Court found that the allegation of pressuring the complainant was a generalized statement without specific instances or details. |
| Threats and Harassment | Complainant | Rejected. The Court noted that the complainant’s claims of threats and harassment by the appellants were not substantiated by specific evidence or details. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [CITATION]: The Court relied on this authority to highlight the principles for quashing criminal proceedings, emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of the court process.
- Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi) [CITATION]: This case was used to reinforce that the power to quash an FIR exists even after a charge sheet has been filed, allowing the Court to examine whether the alleged offenses are prima facie established.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of specific allegations and evidence against the appellants. The Court emphasized that generalized accusations without concrete details are insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving domestic disputes. The Court also considered the fact that the appellants did not reside with the principal accused and that the statements of witnesses were largely based on hearsay.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of Specific Allegations | 40% |
| Generalized Accusations | 25% |
| Hearsay Evidence | 20% |
| Non-Residence with Principal Accused | 15% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factual and legal considerations. The ratio of fact to law can be estimated as follows:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 60% |
| Law (consideration of legal principles and provisions) | 40% |
The Court placed a greater emphasis on the factual aspects of the case, particularly the lack of specific evidence against the appellants. However, legal principles such as the need to prevent abuse of process and the importance of specific allegations in criminal proceedings also played a significant role.
Logical Reasoning
For the issue of whether the allegations against the appellants are vague and generalized:
The Court reasoned that in cases of domestic violence, complaints and charges should be specific against each family member accused of the offenses. Generalized allegations can lead to misuse of criminal processes by indiscriminately implicating all family members.
The Court also noted that while genuine cases of cruelty and violence in domestic settings should be handled with sensitivity, it is essential to strike a balance to ensure that all family members are not swept into the criminal net without specific allegations and instances against them.
The court quoted:
“…in criminal cases relating to domestic violence, the complaints and charges should be specific, as far as possible, as against each and every member of the family who are accused of such offences and sought to be prosecuted…”
The Court also observed:
“…when family relationships are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the family bond, courts should be circumspect and judicious, and should allow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal offences.”
The Supreme Court concluded:
“…the evidence against the appellants in these proceedings boils down to the evidence of the complainant… the aforesaid materials do not constitute a prima facie case against the appellants for continuing the criminal proceedings against them in the trial.”
Key Takeaways
- Specificity in Allegations: In domestic violence cases, allegations against each family member must be specific and supported by evidence.
- Caution Against Generalization: Courts should be cautious about generalized allegations that indiscriminately implicate all family members.
- Protection of Family Bonds: Criminal proceedings should not be used to rupture family bonds unless there is clear evidence of criminal conduct.
- Need for Direct Evidence: Hearsay evidence and statements based on information from others may not be sufficient to sustain criminal charges.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the observations and findings recorded in the judgment would not affect the criminal proceedings against the other accused persons. The trial courts are expected to proceed with the criminal proceedings against the other accused persons after proper appreciation of evidence and in accordance with the law.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that in criminal cases relating to domestic violence, complaints and charges should be specific against each family member accused of such offenses. Generalized allegations without specific details and evidence are insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings against relatives who do not reside with the principal accused.
This judgment reinforces the importance of specific allegations in domestic violence cases and cautions against the misuse of criminal proceedings by indiscriminately implicating all family members. It clarifies that while genuine cases of cruelty and violence should be handled with sensitivity, there must be concrete evidence to support the charges against each accused individual.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Geddam Jhansi and Geddam Sathyakama Jabali, emphasizing the need for specific allegations and evidence in domestic violence cases. The Court cautioned against the misuse of criminal proceedings by indiscriminately implicating all family members, reinforcing the importance of protecting family bonds unless there is clear evidence of criminal conduct.