The court reinforced that mere presence during alleged dowry collection is insufficient for prosecution unless specific roles or acts are attributed to the accused.

O R D E R

Dated this the 16th day of November, 2022 This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.612/2017 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – V, Thiruvananthapuram (in short 'the Court below').

2. The petitioner is the 2nd accused. The respondent No.1 is the defacto complainant. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Section 498 A and 34 of Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act . The 1st accused is the husband of the 1st respondent. The petitioner is the sister of the husband of the 1st respondent. The prosecution case in short is that, 1st respondent was subjected to cruelty both physically and mentally by the petitioner and the 1st accused. It is further alleged that at the time of marriage, the 1st accused in the presence of the petitioner collected dowry from the father of the 1st respondent.

3. I have heard Sri. George Mathews, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor. Even though notice has been served to the

1st respondent, there is no appearance.

4. I went through the FIS as well as the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation. There is absolutely no specific allegation against the petitioner. All the allegations are against the 1st accused. The only allegation against the petitioner is that she was present when the dowry was allegedly collected by the petitioner from the father of the

1st respondent.

5. The Apex Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A of IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes and warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. (SeeKahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar ( AIR 2022 SC 820 ) and K.Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [ (2018) 14 SCC 452 ]. In K. Subba Rao (Supra), the Apex Court held that the court should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. It was further held that the relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. In Kahkashan Kausar (supra), it was held that in the absence of any specific role attributed to the in-laws, it would be unjust if they are forced to go through the tribulations of trial. It was further held that the allegations that are general and omnibus do not warrant prosecution under of .

6. As stated already, there are no specific allegation much less any allegation at all against the petitioner so as to attract the ingredients of either Section 498 A of the IPC or Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act . Hence, no purpose will be served in proceeding further against the petitioner. Accordingly, all further proceedings against the petitioner alone in C.C.No.612/2017 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – V, Thiruvananthapuram is hereby quashed.

Criminal M.C. is allowed.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

APA

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7743/2019 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS DATED

12.10.2014.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FURTHER STATEMENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED

12.9.2015 IN FIR 1463/14 SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POONTHURA POLICE STATION.