Today, On 29th August, The Supreme Court emphasized that criminal proceedings intended to bring wrongdoers to justice, not to seek revenge. This statement highlights the court’s stance that the legal process should focus on justice rather than personal vendettas.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, On Thursday, emphasized that the primary objective of criminal proceedings is to ensure that wrongdoers are brought to justice, rather than to exact revenge or pursue personal vendettas.
This observation made by a bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol during the hearing of a case involving criminal breach of trust. The case brought forward by Padala Veerabhadra Rao from Telangana, who accused his daughter’s former in-laws of failing to return the ‘streedhan’ given at the time of her marriage.
Read Also: “Justice Over Punishment”: President Droupadi Murmu on New Criminal Laws
The bench reiterated the established legal position that a woman (wife or former wife) has the exclusive right to her ‘streedhan’ and sole control over it.
In the criminal case initiated by Rao against his daughter’s former in-laws, the bench noted,
“We would like to emphasize that the purpose of criminal proceedings is to bring a wrongdoer to justice, not to serve as a tool for revenge or to settle a vendetta against those with whom the complainant may hold a grudge.”
Rao claimed that he provided gold ornaments and other items during the wedding in 1999, after which the couple moved to the USA.
He alleged that while his daughter was in the USA, she endured mistreatment, which caused his wife severe distress, ultimately leading to her death on June 6, 2008.
In his complaint, Rao stated that his daughter and son-in-law divorced in the US on August 14, 2015, ending a 16-year marriage. Rao filed an FIR in 2021, claiming that the jewellery he gifted to his daughter, which was entrusted to her in-laws at the time of the wedding, was never returned. His daughter had remarried in 2018. The FIR registered under Section 406 of the IPC, pertaining to criminal breach of trust.
The bench emphasized that the jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court in such matters is clear and unequivocal regarding the “singular right” of the female, whether a wife or former wife, as the sole owner of ‘streedhan.’
Justice Karol, writing the verdict on behalf of the bench, stated,
“It has been held that a husband has no right, and it must therefore be concluded that a father too has no right when the daughter is alive, well, and fully capable of making decisions, such as pursuing the recovery of her ‘streedhan.'”
The court also observed that the action to secure possession of the articles initiated more than 20 years after the marriage and five years after the resolution of all marital issues at the time of the divorce. Moreover, the complaint was not filed by the daughter herself, but by Rao.
Read Also: Supreme Court Raises Alarm Over Extended Case Delays, Calls for Swift Justice
The bench noted that there was no authorization from the complainant’s daughter granting him the authority to initiate proceedings for the recovery of her ‘streedhan,’ which exclusively belongs to her. This, the court observed, raises a fundamental question regarding the basis on which the complainant initiated the current proceedings.
After reviewing the evidence, the bench stated,
“There is no iota of proof on record to show that he had entrusted the ‘streedhan’ of his daughter to her former in-laws, which was allegedly withheld by them.”
The bench further concluded,
“In view of the above, we also hold that the charge under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not substantiated and therefore, fails. Consequently, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the proceedings initiated by the complainant against the present appellants (former in-laws) must be quashed and set aside. Any action commenced as a result thereof is bad in law.”
The questions raised in the appeal were thus resolved accordingly.