Relatives of a husband cannot be prosecuted under dowry laws without specific allegations, especially post-divorce, to prevent misuse of legal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Under the impugned order, the High Court has disposed of the appellants’ prayer for quashing of the summoning order dated 23.04.2018 issued by the Trial Court in Complaint Case No. 2789 of 2015 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Pernal Code, 1860¹ [‘IPC’] and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 without deciding the quashing petition on merits.

3. Kumar Saurabh is the husband of respondent no. 2 (Smt. Charusmita) and the appellants are the relatives of Kumar Saurabh. The appellant no. 1-Sushila is the mother, appellant no. 2-Shailendra Dablu is the elder brother, appellant no. 3-Seema is the sister-in-law, appellant no. 4-Kulshreshtha Upadhyay is the elder brother and appellant no. 5-Kanak is the sister of Kumar Saurabh. Kumar Saurabh and respondent no. 2 (Smt. Charusmita) were married on 17.06.2010. After the marriage, they lived in Kota (Rajasthan) for a brief period before she left the matrimonial home in October, 2010 taking away all her possessions including stridhan and started living with her parents.

4. It is the case of the appellants that effort made by Kumar Saurabh to bring back respondent no. 2 to resume matrimonial life was not successful, compelling him to prefer a divorce petition in the court of Family Judge, Kota, Rajasthan bearing Case No. 476 of 2011. Respondent no. 2 failed to appear before the Family Court despite receiving notice resulting in an ex-parte divorce decree dated 31.05.2012 passed by the Family Court, Kota. After about 03 years from the date of passing of the divorce decree, respondent no. 2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar for registration of a criminal case and making investigation. The said application was treated as a complaint case wherein after recording statement of respondent no. 2 and other witnesses, the learned Magistrate issued summoning order on 23.04.2018 against the appellants under Section 498A IPC.

5. Being aggrieved, the appellants approached the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order which was dismissed vide impugned order.

6. It is argued that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the appellants without there being any specific allegation against any one of them and only bald statement has been made against the appellants stating that they are also involved in harassing respondent no. 2 by demanding dowry.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order on submission that the appellants being relatives of the husband were also involved in ill-treating respondent no. 2 and the truth will emerge during trial. According to him, the present is not a fit case for quashing the complaint at the threshold.

8. A reading of the complaint (Annexure P-2) would reveal that the marriage took place on 17.06.2010 and the couple stayed at Varanasi for five days and proceeded to live in Kota on and from 22.06.2010 where they lived for most of the time. The complainant returned from Kota in October, 2010 and thereafter, it is said that on 16.08.2015 the appellants came to her house at Kota and demanded dowry by threatening and ill-treating her. It is also alleged that they snatched her Mangalsutra and ran away.

9. Admittedly, the marriage has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce passed on 31.05.2012 and the present complaint was filed after three years of divorce. Except for the bald statement against the appellants, the other allegations are against the husband. There is absolutely no reason or justification as to why the appellants would try for a reconciliation by visiting the house of the complainant on 16.08.2015 when the divorce has already taken place by order dated 31.05.2012. Even if such an incident has happened on 16.08.2015, the fact remains that on the said date the relationship of husband and wife has already come to an end as s