The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a dowry harassment FIR against husband’s family, declaring accusations as “vague” and unjustified. Justice Bhatti emphasized caution against implicating relatives without clear evidence.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court on March 3rd made an important judgment regarding a dowry harassment case.
This case involved serious allegations of cruelty and demands for dowry.
Hon’ble Justice Maninder S. Bhatti clearly stated that the dowry harassment case against the husband’s parents and sister was false and decided to cancel it.
Justice Bhatti said that the woman had made unclear and general allegations without specific proof, just to trouble all the family members.
ALSO READ: Big Twist In Kashmir Dowry Case: J&K High Court Puts Chargesheet On Hold Against In-Laws
In this case, two separate petitions were filed. One petition was filed by Ashok Kumar Shrivastava and other family members, and another by Parul Shrivastav. Both petitions questioned an FIR (No. 36/2023) and a charge-sheet filed against them.
This FIR was registered at Mahila Thana police station in Bhopal, under Sections 498-A, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The complaint was originally made by respondent No. 2, who married Piyush Shrivastava on 28 November 2019. Piyush is the son of petitioners Ashok Kumar Shrivastava and Mamta Shrivastava, and the brother of Parul Shrivastav.
The woman claimed that at the time of marriage, her family gave jewelry, Rs. 10 lakh cash, and a Hyundai car.
However, she alleged that despite this, her in-laws and husband harassed her, demanding more dowry.
ALSO READ: Woman Files DOWRY CASE After 30 Years of Marriage, Husband Dies By Suicide In MP
In the FIR, she clearly mentioned:
“My husband abused me, treated me with cruelty, and also manhandled me.”
She also alleged specifically:
“Mere pati Piyush Shrivastava, saas Shrimati Mamta Shrivastav, sasur Ashok Shrivastav, tatha nanad Parul Shrivastav dwara mujhe dahej me aur paise ki maang ko lekar sharirik aur mansik pareshan kiya gaya.”
Further, the FIR stated:
“Shaadi ke baad Pune me karib 1 mahine sasural me pati Piyush Shrivastav, saas shrimati Mamta Shrivastav, sasur Ashok Shrivastav, tatha nanad Parul Shrivastav mujhe aur mere parijano ko apshabd bolte the.”
The complainant further accused her husband in her FIR, saying:
“Mere pati mujhe hamesha dhamki dete the mera gala dabane lagte the tatha mujhe jaan se marne ki dhamki deta tha.”
She also highlighted her husband’s abnormal behavior:
“Piyush ka vyavahar bahut asamanya dikha fate purane kapde pehankar bahar jana tej chillana gaadi tez chalana.”
However, Advocate Shri Deeptanshu Shukla, appearing for the petitioners (the husband’s family), strongly opposed these allegations. He argued that the FIR was vague, unclear, and lacked solid proof.
ALSO READ: Delhi HC: False Dowry and Rape Accusations by Wife’s Family are “Extreme Cruelty”
He clearly mentioned that:
“Respondent No. 2 never stayed in a common household with the applicants.”
The advocate further argued that the woman had gone to the USA shortly after marriage along with her husband. The FIR mentioned that more dowry was demanded on a specific date, “16th May, 2022”. But the advocate pointed out:
“The said allegations so levelled in the F.I.R are baseless and vague.”
He also argued with proof that the husband had transferred large sums of money to his wife multiple times. The advocate provided transaction details in court as “Annexure A-2”.
The advocate further said clearly that the FIR does not contain any exact acts of cruelty or any clear demand for dowry, describing the woman’s claims as:
“Vague, baseless, and general.”
To support his argument, the lawyer cited several important judgments from higher courts like:
Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682],
Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab and another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3473],
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 759],
Mirza Iqbal @ Golu and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [(2022) 16 SCC 697] and
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar and others [(2022) 6 SCC 699],
Kunaldev Singh Rathor and others v. State of M.P. and another [2016 SCC OnLine MP 6377], and
Shabban Khan and Others v. State of U.P. and another [2024 SCC OnLine All 4844].
On the other side, Advocate Jubin Prasad, representing the complainant (respondent No. 2), argued that the case should continue against the petitioners as they directly demanded dowry and caused cruelty.
He said clearly in court:
“Subjected to severe cruelty at the behest of applicants under the garb of demand of dowry.”
He argued that the FIR clearly described offenses under Section 498-A IPC.
Advocate Prasad also supported his arguments by mentioning decisions from important cases like:
G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka [(2010) 3 SCC 152],
Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [(2012) 10 SCC 741],
Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P. and others [(2015) 11 SCC 260],
Rakhi Mishra v. State of Bihar and others [(2017) 16 SCC 772],
Meera v. State by the Inspector of Police Thruvotriyur, Police Station, Chennai [(2022) 3 SCC 93], and
Meena Sharma (Smt.) and ors. v. State of M.P. and another [I.L.R (2016) MP 2385].
However, after closely examining all evidence and arguments, the High Court observed clearly that even though the FIR mentioned demands for dowry on 16.05.2022, it did not specify exactly how much money was asked for.
Therefore, the court concluded that the allegations made against the family members were:
“Vague, omnibus and general and in one stroke all the applicants who are relatives of husband being sought to be implicated.”
The court further referred specifically to the Supreme Court decision in Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., highlighting:
“Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.”
Based on this reasoning, the High Court clearly decided that:
“This petition deserves to be allowed.”
Finally, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the court canceled FIR No. 36/2023 against the husband’s family members. The court finally concluded:
“Resultantly, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands allowed.”
Advocates’ Appearances:
- For Petitioners: Shri Deeptanshu Shukla, Advocate.
- For Respondent State: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Deputy Government Advocate.
- For Respondent No. 2: Advocate Shri Jubin Prasad.
This judgment clarifies the importance of clear and specific allegations in dowry harassment cases, reinforcing that vague claims alone cannot lead to criminal action against family members without proper evidence.
CASE TITLE:
ASHOK KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
