Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Mohd. Aslam, J.
Shani @ Sani Kumar And 4 Others - Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Party
Application U/S 482 No. 3246 of 2019
Decided On : 10-08-2022
Dowry Prohibition Act - Criminal Proceedings - Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - The court discussed the applicability of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of UP & Anr., Mirza Iqbal @ Golu & Anr. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, and Pankaj Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. & Another. The court also considered the jurisdictional aspect of the offense and the specific allegations made against the accused-applicants.
Fact of the Case:
The victim alleged that her husband and in-laws demanded additional dowry, assaulted and maltreated her, resulting in a serious injury to her private part. The accused-applicants denied the allegations and claimed that the criminal proceedings were initiated to pressurize the husband to live separately.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that prima facie evidence disclosed cognizable offenses under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., stating that it lacked merit and was moved with mala fide intention to delay the proceedings.
Issues: The court considered the applicability of relevant case laws, the jurisdictional aspect of the offense, and the genuineness of the prosecution case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that specific allegations against the accused-applicants and the uncontroverted evidence recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation disclosed a prima facie case of commission of cognizable offenses.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., stating that it lacked merit and was moved with mala fide intention to delay the proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Jai Prakash Prasad, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Sukhendra Singh, learner counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as Sri S.N. Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State of U.P. and and perused the record.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking quashing of entire criminal proceedings of Case No.1044 of 2018 (State vs. Shani and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 02 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Aligarh as well as charge-sheet no. 22 of 2018 dated 18.06.2018 and cognizance order dated 04.08.2018, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Aligarh.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this application are that opposite party no.2, Preeti daughter of Ranveer Singh lodged the first information report against the applicants on 09.01.2018 at 13:13 hrs. on the basis of written complaint alleging therein that her marriage with applicant, Shani took place on 05.02.2017 according to Hindu rites and rituals. In the marriage, her father had spent about a sum of Rs.11 lakhs. Her husband was working in a private company and was getting about Rs.20,000/-as salary. After sometime of marriage, her husband started demanding Rs.2 lakhs for construction of his house which was refused by her on account of which her husband started assaulting and maltreating her on persuasion of her in-laws. On 25.04.2017, her husband came home in drunken condition and started abusing her vulgarly and forcibly took off her shalwar and lacerated her vagina mercilessly, then she cried in pain and hearing the cry the applicant nos. 2 to 5 started laughing saying that she deserves it. Due to excess bleeding she became unconscious and on 26.04.2017 she was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi due to her bad condition. Her husband had also threatened her. On 15.10.2017 her husband left her at Aligarh. When she came at her parental house, she told the entire incident to her parents and close relatives who tried to convince her husband and other in-laws but resulted in vain. The applicant no.1 had admitted the victim/complainant in Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi for treatment on 26.04.2017 after causing injury in her private part by both hands (the photocopy of the treatment prescription dated 26.04.2017 has been annexed as Annexure No.2 to the affidavit). The relevant portion of the treatment prescription is quoted as follows:-
26/04/2017 8.01A.M.
Nullipara female with post coital tear
L/E
0.5x0.5cm tear with continuous bleeding.
On Admission-----P/A/Soft
Procedure – repair in I/V Sedition
Perop-Haemostatic Suture
Advised-Amlox 500mg O-O-O 5 Days
-Tab Brufen sos
-T. Fs/Bl/Oc/Ps 1od
-T. Chipmoral Fort
O-O-O 4hours Tdsx14 Days
-Perineal Care O-O-O
COD. Satisfactory Vital Stable
4. Investigating Officer recorded the statement of opposite party no. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (typed copy of the statement has been annexed as annexure no.3), wherein she stated that the members of her in-laws’ family were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and were demanding Rs. 2 lakh as additional dowry and on account of non-fullfilment of demand of additional dowry, her husband (applicant no.1), mother-in-law (applicant no.2), father-in-law (applicant no.3), sister-in-law, unmarried Nanad (applicant no.4) and brother-in-law, Devar (applicant no.5) started beating and maltreating her. The opposite party no.2 was medically examined on 15.02.2018 at Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Aligarh. On internal examination, no fresh injury was seen. On external examination no fresh injury of recent use of force was found. Two smear slides were prepared and sent for pathological examination in which no spermatozoa was seen and supplementary injury report was prepared in which doctor opined that on the basis of pathological, medical an
The court emphasized the importance of considering specific allegations and uncontroverted evidence to determine the prima facie case of commission of cognizable offenses.
Allegations of dowry demands must be specific; vague claims do not justify criminal proceedings under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
Vague and general allegations in matrimonial disputes do not warrant prosecution under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, as they may constitute malicious prosecution.
Vague, omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes are insufficient to sustain criminal charges against in-laws under dowry laws; specific evidence is required to proceed, preventing misuse of legal ....
General allegations in FIR without specific roles do not warrant prosecution under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
Vague and omnibus allegations against family members in dowry cases do not suffice for criminal liability; specific incidents must be established.
The court affirmed that allegations in matrimonial disputes must be substantiated with clear evidence to prevent misuse of legal processes.
The court emphasized preventing misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes, ruling that vague allegations against family members warrant quashing of proceedings. Specific wrongdoing must be demon....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for careful scrutiny of allegations in matrimonial disputes, the potential misuse of legal provisions, and the importance of examining wit....
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
