Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 16, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 505

Judges: Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Can relatives of a husband be automatically implicated in dowry harassment cases? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in Sushil A & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., a case concerning the quashing of a summoning order against the husband’s relatives. The court reiterated the need for specific allegations against each individual, cautioning against the common practice of roping in all family members in matrimonial disputes. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra delivered the judgment.

Case Background

Kumar Saurabh married Smt. Charusmita on June 17, 2010. After their marriage, they resided in Kota, Rajasthan, for a short period. In October 2010, Smt. Charusmita left the matrimonial home, taking her belongings and stridhan, and began living with her parents.

Kumar Saurabh attempted to bring his wife back, but his efforts were unsuccessful. Consequently, he filed a divorce petition in the Family Court, Kota, Rajasthan, Case No. 476 of 2011. Smt. Charusmita did not appear in court despite receiving notice, leading to an ex-parte divorce decree on May 31, 2012.

Approximately three years after the divorce decree, Smt. Charusmita filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, seeking the registration of a criminal case and investigation. This application was treated as a complaint case. After recording Smt. Charusmita’s statement and those of other witnesses, the Magistrate issued a summoning order on April 23, 2018, against Sushil A (mother), Shailendra Dablu (elder brother), Seema (sister-in-law), Kulshreshtha Upadhyay (elder brother), and Kanak (sister) of Kumar Saurabh under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Timeline

Date Event
June 17, 2010 Marriage of Kumar Saurabh and Smt. Charusmita.
October 2010 Smt. Charusmita leaves the matrimonial home.
22.06.2010 Couple started living in Kota.
May 31, 2012 Ex-parte divorce decree passed by the Family Court, Kota.
August 16, 2015 Alleged incident of dowry demand at Smt. Charusmita’s house in Kota.
April 23, 2018 Summoning order issued by the Magistrate against the appellants.

Course of Proceedings

Aggrieved by the summoning order, the appellants filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the High Court, seeking to quash the order. The High Court dismissed the petition without deciding on its merits, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following legal provisions:

  • Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with cruelty by husband or relatives of husband.
  • Sections 323, 504, 506 of the IPC: Relate to voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult, and criminal intimidation, respectively.
  • Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Concerns the demand for dowry.
  • Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): Provides for a Magistrate to order an investigation of a cognizable offense.
  • Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): Deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.
See also  Supreme Court settles the employee status of Canteen Workers in Chennai Port Trust: Chennai Port Trust vs. Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Association (27 April 2018)

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

  • The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the appellants without any specific allegation against any one of them.
  • Only a bald statement was made against the appellants, stating that they were also involved in harassing respondent no. 2 by demanding dowry.
  • The alleged incident of demanding dowry on August 16, 2015, is questionable since the divorce had already taken place on May 31, 2012.

Respondents’ Arguments:

  • The appellants, being relatives of the husband, were also involved in ill-treating respondent no. 2.
  • The truth will emerge during the trial.
  • The present case is not a fit case for quashing the complaint at the threshold.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the summoning order against the husband’s relatives can be sustained in the absence of specific allegations against each of them, particularly after the divorce decree had already been passed.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue How the Court Dealt With It Brief Reasons
Whether the summoning order against the husband’s relatives can be sustained in the absence of specific allegations against each of them, particularly after the divorce decree had already been passed. The Court held that the summoning order could not be sustained. The Court found no specific allegations against the relatives for any incident during the subsistence of the marriage. The alleged incident occurred after the divorce decree.

Authorities

  • Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 741] Supreme Court of India: Deprecated the practice of involving the relatives of the husband for the offence under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
  • Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr. [(2024) INSC 953 : (2024) 12 SCR 559] Supreme Court of India: Reiterated and deprecated the practice of involving the relatives of the husband in dowry related matters.

Judgment

The Supreme Court quashed the Complaint Case No. 2789 of 2015 against the appellants, holding that they had been unnecessarily roped into the complaint without any specific allegations against them for any incident that took place during the subsistence of the marriage.

Key Takeaways

  • Specific allegations are necessary to implicate relatives in dowry harassment cases.
  • Courts must exercise caution to prevent the misuse of legal provisions and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.
  • Generalized accusations without concrete evidence cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sushil A & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reinforces the principle that relatives of the husband cannot be automatically implicated in dowry harassment cases without specific and substantiated allegations. This judgment serves as a reminder for courts to exercise caution and prevent the misuse of legal provisions to harass innocent family members.

Category

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860
    • Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
    • Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
  • Criminal Procedure Code
    • Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code
  • Matrimonial Disputes
  • Dowry Harassment
  • Quashing of Summons

FAQ

  1. Can relatives of the husband be automatically implicated in dowry harassment cases?

    No, the Supreme Court has emphasized that specific allegations are necessary to implicate relatives in dowry harassment cases.

  2. What should courts consider in dowry harassment cases involving relatives?

    Courts must exercise caution to prevent the misuse of legal provisions and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. Generalized accusations without concrete evidence cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.

  3. What is the significance of the Sushil A & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. judgment?

    The judgment reinforces the principle that relatives of the husband cannot be automatically implicated in dowry harassment cases without specific and substantiated allegations, serving as a reminder for courts to exercise caution.

See also  Supreme Court quashes conviction under Section 498A IPC due to vague allegations: Rajesh Chaddha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) INSC 671 (13 May 2025)

Source: Sushil A & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.