The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench quashed criminal proceedings against Raghvendra Narain Khanna and others over allegations of dowry demand and assault. The court termed prosecution after divorce, cruelty by wife, “abuse of process of law.”
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has quashed criminal proceedings against Raghvendra Narain Khanna and others in a matter alleging dowry demand and physical assault.
While adjudicating the case, Justice Brij Raj Singh held that continuing the prosecution after the matrimonial relationship had ended in divorce particularly when cruelty was found against the wife and not the husband would amount to an “abuse of process of law.”
The applicants moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging orders dated August 14, 2015 and March 8, 2017, passed by the Additional District Judge and the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bahraich, respectively.
The CJM had summoned the applicants in a complaint case filed by Puneet (the wife’s brother). The complaint invoked:
- Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC, and
- Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The marriage took place on March 9, 2002, in New Delhi.
The complaint was filed on July 28, 2015, alleging an incident dated June 5, 2013. Summons were issued on August 14, 2015. The applicants then filed a criminal revision, which was dismissed on March 8, 2017.
The applicants contended that they were falsely implicated.
They specifically argued that:
- Applicant No. 3 (husband) and his wife had never resided in Bahraich with Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 (parents), making the dowry-related allegations there groundless.
- There was an inordinate, unreasonable, and unexplained delay of over two years in filing the complaint.
- They also produced materials showing alibi in support of their defence.
They further pointed out that the Family Court, Gurugram, had granted a divorce decree in favour of the husband on February 25, 2021, holding that cruelty was established against the wife and not the husband.
The learned AGA for the State argued that, upon reading the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., offences were made out and that the summoning order of the trial court did not call for interference.
No representation appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2.
The High Court examined the divorce judgment, particularly paragraph 23, which recorded the following:
“In such circumstances, respondent alleging petitioner to be suffering from bipolar disorder when the doctors have also negated such an observation… proves the conduct of the respondent to be cruel towards the petitioner… This conduct of the respondent towards the petitioner amounts to cruelty upon him.”
The High Court also identified material weaknesses in the prosecution case, including:
- Delay: The complaint was filed nearly two years after the alleged incident, with no convincing explanation.
- Absence of evidence: There was no medical report supporting the allegations of physical assault.
- Credibility concerns regarding the wife’s role: In separate proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the wife, during cross-examination, admitted that she did not lodge the dowry case and was unaware of the facts relating to the case filed by her brother.
The Court further observed that,
“The cross-examination of the sister of opposite party no.2… indicates that she had no knowledge about the factum of the present case and it appears that her brother had instituted the criminal proceedings just to settle his personal score with mala fide intention.”
Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Mange Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another (2025), the High Court noted the consistent principle that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to operate as harassment after the matrimonial relationship has ended and the parties have moved on.
ALSO READ: Chhattisgarh High Court: Taunting Husband for Joblessness is Cruelty, Grants Divorce
Furthermore, this Court has consistently taken the view that where the matrimonial relationship has come to an end by way of divorce, and the parties have since settled in their respective lives, criminal prosecution emanating from that past relationship ought not to be permitted to linger as a means of harassment.
In view of the divorce decree showing that cruelty was not proved against the husband, along with the suspicious delay and lack of supporting evidence, the High Court held that the criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the application was allowed, and the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2032 of 2015, including the orders dated March 8, 2017 and August 14, 2015, were quashed as against the applicants.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Cruelty
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Divorce