The Supreme Court set aside a dowry-harassment FIR against a woman’s parents-in-law and sister-in-law in Uttar Pradesh, ruling that vague matrimonial allegations should not trigger criminal proceedings. It stressed that criminal law must not serve as personal vendetta.
The Supreme Court set aside a dowry-harassment FIR against a woman’s parents-in-law and sister-in-law in Uttar Pradesh, holding that vague allegations in matrimonial disputes should not automatically trigger criminal proceedings against a husband’s relatives.
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the petition challenging an Allahabad High Court decision that had declined to quash an FIR filed against the complainant’s sister-in-law and parents-in-law under IPC Section 498A (cruelty in matrimonial matters), Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
In its order, the court said,
“Time and again, this court has observed that merely stating certain vague and omnibus allegations without any cogent material evidence to support the same should not become a fillip to jump-start the criminal machinery of the State.”
The bench emphasized that “criminal law must not be used to unleash personal vendetta against a husband’s family and that courts should exercise caution when broad allegations lack supporting evidence.
It added,
“A mere statement stating that the accused herein frequently demanded dowry and harassed the complainant for the same is not sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings against them when the same are not corroborated or bolstered by other materials placed on record.”
The complainant had alleged that after her April 2017 marriage, her husband and in-laws demanded Rs 8.5 lakh and a car as dowry and subjected her to cruelty. She further accused them of assaulting her during pregnancy in 2017, leading to a miscarriage, and alleged molestation by her father-in-law.
In December 2023, the Allahabad High Court had refused to quash the FIR lodged in November 2023 against the sister-in-law and parents-in-law, noting that the investigating officer had dropped the charge of causing miscarriage and that medical records did not support that allegation.
The Supreme Court also pointed to a delay of more than six years in filing the FIR, finding the prosecution’s explanation for the delay unsatisfactory.
ALSO READ: Dowry Death? Dying Declaration Sends Mother-In-Law To Jail For Life: District Court
Noting that such delays can be decisive in personal-dispute cases where evidence is often sparse, the bench observed,
“We find that the citizens who allege commission of an offence should not dawdle on their rights but should rather pursue them in real time in order to achieve the ends of justice,”
It further remarked that the accusations against the in-laws were largely general and did not specify their roles.
The court allowed the appeals, quashing the FIR, the chargesheet and the pending criminal proceedings against the sister-in-law and parents-in-law, while clarifying that its observations would not affect any separate matrimonial litigation between the parties.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Dowry