Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
Hemlata – Appellant
Versus
State & Others – Respondent
Crl.M.C. 6030 of 2019
Decided On : 07-08-2023
Dowry Demands - Matrimonial Dispute - IPC 406, IPC 498A - The court discussed the allegations of dowry demands and cruelty caused to the petitioner, the legal provisions of IPC 406 and IPC 498A, and the court's decision to discharge the respondents no.2 to 5 for the offences under sections 406/498A IPC. The court also ordered to frame the charge for offence punishable under section 406 IPC against the respondent no 3.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged dowry demands and cruelty by her husband and in-laws. The trial court discharged the respondents no.2 to 5 for the offences under sections 406/498A IPC. The revisional court upheld the order but ordered to frame the charge for offence punishable under section 406 IPC against the respondent no 3.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations made by the petitioner were vague and not specific, and did not reflect harassment/cruelty due to dowry demands. The court held that the offence under section 498A IPC was not made out against the respondents no.2 to 5. The court also held that the material collected during investigation did not reflect the commission of offences punishable under sections 406/498A IPC against the respondents no.2 to 5.
Issues: The issues involved the allegations of dowry demands and cruelty, the applicability of IPC 406 and IPC 498A, and the discharge of the respondents no.2 to 5 for the offences under sections 406/498A IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the allegations were general in nature and did not reflect harassment by the in-laws for dowry demands. The court also held that the material collected during investigation did not reflect the commission of offences punishable under sections 406/498A IPC against the respondents no.2 to 5.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition as it was devoid of any merit.
JUDGMENT
1. Marriage is considered to be an institution of trust, tolerance and mutual understanding but sometimes individual incompatibilities, attitudinal differences, maladjustment, psychological and other issues cause differences in matrimonial relationship.
2. The petitioner got married with Subhash who was son of the respondents no 2 & 3 according to Hindu rites and customs on 26.11.2007. The respondents no 2 to 5 are in-laws of the petitioner being family members of Subhash. The matrimonial differences stated to be arisen in matrimonial relationship of the petitioner and Subhash. The petitioner filed a complaint dated 21.11.2014 before CAW Cell, Nanak Pura wherein she alleged that her father had spent more than 7/8 lacs in marriage and had given jewellery gold and silver, household articles and a motorcycle. Subhash and the respondents no 2 to 5 were not happy with dowry articles and jewellery given in the marriage and started to taunt and beat the petitioner. The petitioner came to know that Subhash used to consume liquor frequently. The petitioner was not allowed to take rest during pregnancy. The father of the petitioner paid entire expenses of the hospital at the time birth of son on 30.11.2009. Subhash and the respondents no 2 to 5 were not satisfied with the gift articles given by the father of the petitioner at the time of birth of the son. Subhash purchased a car in 2009 and father of the petitioner also contributed Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner was beaten by Subhash and the respondents no 2 to 5 on 18.01.2012. Subhash on next day in a meeting of family members had assured that he would not repeat such behaviour and make any demand.The petitioner since 08.05.2014 along with son was residing at her parental house as she was thrown out from matrimonial home after severe beatings. Subhashon 11.05.2014 was admitted in de-addiction centre for two months. Subhash along with two persons gave beatings to the petitioner and her father on 14.07.2014. The jewellery and istridhan (dowry) articles of the petitioner were in the custody of the mother-in-law i.e. the respondent no 3 at matrimonial house. Subhash and the respondents no 2 to 5 also demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioner.
3. The complaint dated 21.11.2014 was culminated into registration of FIR bearing no 0089/16 dated 01.06.2016 registered under sections 406/498A/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") at PS CWC, Nanak Pura wherein Subhash along with the respondents no 2 to 5 were implicated. Subhash allegedly committed suicide on 20.10.2016 for which FIR bearing no 0666/16 was got registered under sections 306/34 IPC at PS Saket. The charge sheet after conclusion of investigation in pursuance of FIR bearing no 0089/16 was filed wherein the respondents no.2 to 5 were implicated. The respondents no 2 & 3 were implicated for offences punishable under sections 406/498A IPC and the respondents no.4 & 5 were implicated for offences punishable under sections 498A IPC. The trial was stated to be pending in the court of Ms. Richa Gusain Solanki, Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court)-01, Dwarka (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court").
4. The trial court vide order dated 22.02.2019 discharged the respondents no.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under sections 498A/406 IPC. The relevant part of order dated 22.02.2019 produced verbatim as under:
In the entire complaint and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. complaintant has not mentioned about any specific demand made from her by the accused persons. The only allegations of unlawful demand are against Subhash.
Complainant has alleged that all the accused persons used to taunt her and tell her to get cash from her father, but it is not specified as to who demanded how much money from her and when. It is also not specified when she was allegedly beaten up and tortured and by whom.
Complainant also alleged that she used to be beaten up by Subhash under the influence of liquor that she was not allowed
The court emphasized that general allegations which are not specific in nature regarding harassment caused to a wife for dowry demands cannot be the basis of framing a charge for the offence punishab....
The court emphasized the need for specific and particularized allegations to establish a prima facie case for the offenses, and the lack of entrustment of property and specific allegations regarding ....
General and unsupported allegations in matrimonial disputes cannot sustain criminal charges against relatives; specific acts must be demonstrated to justify prosecution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific allegations and material particulars to uphold charges under sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and the need to weigh evidence ....
Section 498A of IPC reads as husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
Court emphasized that general and omnibus allegations against in-laws under Section 498A IPC do not warrant prosecution, warning against misuse of the law in matrimonial disputes.
Specific allegations are essential to establish a prima facie case under IPC Sections 406 and 498-A; general allegations are insufficient for prosecution.
Cruelty and dowry offences – Criminal law must not be permitted to degenerate into instrument of oppression or personal vengeance.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
