Specific allegations must be made against accused in dowry cases; vague claims against relatives without direct involvement are insufficient.

ORDER

Dated : 17^th March, 2026 Accused persons 1 to 3 in C.C.5/2025 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kollam, arising out of crime No.719/2024 of Kollam West Police station filed this Crl.M.C under Section 528 BNS S praying for quashing all further proceedings against them. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 85 , 316(2) and 115(2) of and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act .

2. The prosecution case is that the 1^st accused, being the husband of the de facto complainant and accused persons 2 and 3 being his parents, subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty both physically and mentally, demanding more dowry, voluntarily caused hurt to her, appropriated her gold and money and thereby they are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, even if the entire allegations levelled against the petitioners as such are believed, the same will not constitute any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Further, according to the learned counsel, petitioners 2 and 3 who are aged parents of the 1^st petitioner are falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioners.

4. In Annexure-A1 complaint and in the 161 Cr.P.C statement given by the de facto complainant, it is alleged that the 1^st petitioner married her on 9.1.2020 at the Little Flower Church, Ernakulam. In connection with the marriage, she was given a Benz car, 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments, diamond worth Rs.30,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,35,58,884/- through bank transactions and a further sum of Rs.21,00,000/- by cash. On the date of marriage itself, the 1^st petitioner received her entire gold ornaments. The petitioners 1 and 3 subjected her to cruelty alleging that the sisters of the 1^st accused were given Rs.10,00,00,000/- as dowry and the said dowry was not received from the family of the de facto complainant.

5. In Annexure-A1 complaint it is also alleged that a total sum of Rs.71,00,000/- from various joint accounts was transferred by the 1^st accused into his personal account, without the knowledge and consent of the de facto complainant. As per Ext.A1 complaint, all the accused persons subjected her to cruelty, both physically and mentally. It was further alleged that, while the de facto complainant was staying in her residence in connection with the delivery, the petitioners along with other relatives came there on 5.4.2023 and directed her to give authorization in favour of the 1^st accused, to enable him to withdraw the amount deposited in their joint names. Further, all the accused persons made it clear that in case the above demand was not complied, the 1^st accused will not continue the marital relationship with her.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the above allegations levelled against the petitioners are not sufficient to constitute the offences as alleged. Therefore, it was argued that the petitioners are entitled to get an order quashing the proceedings against them. In support of the above argument, the learned counsel has relied upon the decisions in Sushila and Ors. v. State of U.P. And Ors. , MANU/SC/0506/2025, Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Ors. v. State of Telangana and Ors. , (2025) 3 SCC 735 and Kahkashan Kausar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. , AIR 2022 SC 820 .

7. In the decision in Sushila (supra), the Apex Court held that the relatives of the husband should not be implicated in the case without specif