Rohan Umak
MP High Court ruling: The Madhya Pradesh High Court (HC), while hearing a dowry harassment case against a man, ruled that a wife should not be allowed to implicate her husband’s entire family in such cases merely to exert pressure on him. Justice Vinay Saraf of the MP HC, while hearing a petition filed by the parents of an accused husband, noted that forcing kin to face trial based on vague allegations would be unjust, and quashed criminal proceedings against them.
MP High Court ruling: Case stemmed from FIR
Notably, the case arose from a First Information Report (FIR) filed by a woman under the Bharatiya Nyay Samhita (BNS), 2023 and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court, in its March 11 order, observed that the dispute appeared to have ensued between the husband and the wife, and should not automatically implicate other family members. The bench headed by Justice Saraf further underscored that if the husband’s parents were forced to undergo the ordeal of a criminal trial based only on general and omnibus allegations, it would be unfair. Thereafter, the court cleared the husband’s parents of criminal charges.
Marriage lasted merely for 10 days
The complainant alleged that she had got married to the accused on February 13, 2024. She added that soon after the alliance, her father-in-law and mother-in-law subjected her to mental and physical torment over dowry demands. She claimed that her parents had already handed away several items as dowry, but the in-laws demanded additional items, including a car, an air conditioner, a ring, a gold chain and Rs 5 lakh in cash.
The complainant further claimed that she was taken to her matrimonial home on February 16, 2024, but the alleged harassment continued, leading her to leave the house on February 22, 2024 and stay at her parental home.
“Allegations against husband’s parents bald and vague”: HC
The court, after examining the FIR and the investigation records, opined that the accusations against the husband’s parents were vague and were unsupported by specific evidence. It noted that the witness statements largely repeated the FIR without presenting concrete instances of wrongdoing, and quashed the FIR against her in-laws. The court said that proceedings against the husband will continue, allowing the trial to proceed against the key accused.
State opposes plea
During the hearing, the advocate representing the petitioners, Baboo Ji Chourasia, argued that the woman had implicated the entire family on the basis of broad allegations without credible evidence. Meanwhile, state counsel Jitendra Shrivastava opposed the plea, contending that the kin of the accused were also involved in the alleged harassment, and that the claims could be proven during trial.
