While taking a very grim view of the trend of false implication of the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, the Telangana High Court in an extremely laudable, learned, landmark and latest judgment titled P Rajeshwari And Another Vs The State Of A.P. in CRL.P. Nos. 6400 and 7242 of 2013 pronounced as recently as on July 14, 2022 minced absolutely no words to observe that the false implication of the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes based on general and omnibus allegations, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. It is high time and the Centre must step in and promptly amend the law by introducing reasonable checks and balances like where the allegations are mala fide and with intent to falsely implicate then the women who does so and so also her relatives who abet her to do so must be made to undergo a minimum imprisonment term of at least five years and so also would have to give compensation of few lakhs of rupees to the husband. This will definitely go a long way in checking the open and rampant abuse of dowry laws against the husband and his relatives. We thus see that the Bench of Hon’ble Sri Justice A Santhosh Reddy ordered to quash further proceedings against the mother-in-law/A2, brother-in-law/A3 (husband’s brother), and sister-in-law/A4 (wife of husband’s brother) of a woman, who had levelled allegations of harassing her for dowry [booked u/s 498-A IPC and S. 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act].
At the outset, this cogent, composed, convincing and common order authored by a Single Judge Bench of the Telangana High Court comprising of Hon’ble Sri Justice A Santhosh Reddy sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Crl.P.No.6400 of 2013 is filed by the petitioners/A-2 and A-4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.123 of 2013 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur.”
Simply put, the Bench then states in para 2 that, “Crl.P.No.7242 of 2013 is filed by the petitioner/A-3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.123 of 2013 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur.”
Needless to say, the Bench then observes in para 3 that, “Since these two criminal petitions arose out of the same crime number and one P.R.C., they are being disposed of by way of common order.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 4 that, “The second respondent herein filed a private complaint before the Court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate at Miyapur alleging that her marriage with A-1 took place on 14.12.2006 at Gold Merchant Association Community Hall, Gandhi Bazaar, Ongole, Prakasham District. During the time of marriage, Rs.5.00 lakhs cash and 25 tulas of gold were given towards dowry to the accused. Since the day of marriage, in-laws started harassing the second respondent on one or other pretext and suspecting her fidelity. It is alleged that A-1 harassed the second respondent physically and mentally for additional dowry. The second respondent went to the house of her in-laws at Ongole during the month of February, 2007 for leading marital life. A-1 continued the harassment and used to come in drunken condition and used to undress her and beat her till early hours of the following day. On their demand, the father of the second respondent gave additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs on 20.04.2007. A-3 husband of A4 expressed his sympathy towards her and took her forcefully in his lap and tried to caress her, when the second respondent resisted and tried to run away, upon which A-3 told that entire family would support him. When she revealed the incident the entire family supported him and warned her that she has no option except to satisfy him and he tore her blouse. With great difficulty, the second respondent hit him with pestle and he sustained injuries. It is also alleged that the second respondent informed to A-1 and her father-in-law, they called A-3 and A-4 and all of them gagged her mouth and mercilessly beat her. Thereafter, the second respondent was brought by A-1 to Hyderabad on 28.02.2007 and left her at her parents house.”
While continuing in the same vein, the Bench then discloses in para 5 that, “It is also alleged that the mother-in-law of the second respondent was insisting her to do all house-hold work and find fault with her deliberately and used to abuse her in filthy language. During the month of June, 2011, A-4 along with his cousin brother came to her residence and threatened with dire consequences if additional dowry is not given. On 16.03.2012 midnight her husband contacted to the father of the second respondent and threatened him with dire consequences if he does not convince his daughter to join him. Basing on the complaint referred, a case in crime No.203 of 2012 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the A-1 and the petitioners/A-2 and A-4 for the offences punishable under Sections.498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 498-A and 354 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A-3 and the same was numbered as PRC.No.123 of 2013 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Petitions are filed.”
As we see, the Bench then points out in para 7 that, “Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are relatives of husband of the second respondent and they were residing in different places and she made all the allegations against her husband only except saying that A-3 touched her hand in the year 2007 and that too when her brief stay of two months in her husband’s house and when she went to the house of A-3 to discuss the issue. Insofar as A-2 and A-4 are concerned, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits there are no allegations against the petitioners/A-2 and A-4 except saying that they abused the second respondent in her brief stay of two months at her in-laws house that she is not cooking properly. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 without therebeing any material allegations satisfying the alleged offences and making the petitioners to undergo the rigor of trial, would amount to abuse of process of law and prayed to quash the proceedings.”
To be sure, the Bench then states in para 8 that, “Learned Senior Counsel relied on the following decisions:
1. Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667
2. Geeta Mehrotra v.State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 741
3. K.Subba Rao v. State of Telangana (2018) 14 Supreme Court Cases 452
4. Mirza Iqbal alias Golu v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2021 SCC Online SC 1251
5. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162.”
As it turned out, the Bench then specifies in para 10 that, “A perusal of the allegations of the charge sheet would reveal that A-1 is the husband of the second respondent, A-2 is the mother of A-1. A-3 is the brother of A-1 and A-4 is the sister-in-law of A-1. The marriage of A-1 and the second respondent took place on 14.12.2006 at Gold Merchant Association Community Hall, Gandhi Bazaar, Ongole, Prakasham District. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs, 25 tolas of gold was demanded, but on negotiations dowry amount was reduced to Rs.5.00 lakhs and 25 tolas of gold. The father of the second respondent spent huge amount in the marriage. It is further alleged that A-1 and the second respondent went to Tirupathi and returned to the house of the second respondent and thereafter, the accused started suspecting infidelity of the second respondent and used to beat her with belt. It is also alleged that the second respondent went to the house of in-laws at Ongole during the month of February, 2007 and A-1 continued harassment. It is alleged that the second respondent informed the first petitioner and others, but they did not take any steps. Further they demanded additional dowry. The father of the second respondent paid Rs.3.00 lakhs on 20.04.2007.”
Furthermore, the Bench then maintains in para 11 that, “The main allegations against the A-3, who is the husband of A-4, is that he expressed sympathy towards her and took her forcibly in his lap and tried to caress her and the second respondent resisted and tried to run away and she informed the same to A-1 and her father- in-law and they called A-3 and A-4 and all of them gagged her mouth and mercilessly beat her and on 28.02.2007 A-1 left the second respondent at her parents house.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench then sought to clearly state in para 12 that, “The allegations of the charge sheet coupled with the statements of the second respondent, her father and other witnesses reveal that there is only allegation against the petitioner/A-3 that he expressed his sympathy towards the second respondent and caught hold her hand. She resisted the alleged incident occurred prior to 28.02.2007. If at all there is truth in the allegations of the second respondent, so far as A-3 is concerned, she being a software Engineer would not have kept quite without taking any recourse from 12.06.2007 on which date the second respondent was alleged to have molested by the petitioner/A-3. . The said allegation prima facie do not make out or satisfy the essential ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 354 IPC and appears to have made with an oblique motive.”
It cannot be just glossed over that the Bench then unequivocally states in para 13 that, “Coming to the allegations made against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 infact, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that they are residents of Ongole, Prakasham District. Admittedly, in the complaint, it is alleged that the second respondent is not living with A-1 since 28.02.2007, on which date she was taken to her parents house. The only allegation made by the second respondent after she left to her parents house is that on 16.03.2012, A-1 called her and threatened her with dire consequences. It appears these allegations are prima facie appears to be made to implicate the petitioners probably to bring pressure on the family.”
While citing the relevant case law, the Bench then hastens to add in para 14 that, “It would be relevant at this stage to take note of opt observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in G.V.Rao v.LHV Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693 and at para No.12 held as under:
“12 There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.””
Most commendably, the Bench then states upfront in para 15 that, “Coming to the facts of the present case, when the contents of charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses, F.I.R. are perused, it is apparent that all the main allegations are against A-1 for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, whereas the family members i.e. A-2 and A-4 who is mother and sister in law of A-1 appears to have been implicated by way of general and omni bus allegations and there is no specific and distinct allegations have been made as to the role played by them in the alleged offences. Insofar as, A-1 is concerned, the veracity of the allegations made against him need not be examined by this Court, since he is not before this Court. However, as far as the petitioners are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.”
While citing most relevant case laws, the Bench then notes in para 16 that, “In Preeti Gupta (supra 1), the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
32. “It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
37. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law.”
In Mizra Iqbal Alias Golu (supra 4), the Apex Court held as under:
“ However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant wife.””
Most significantly, the Bench then ostensibly lays bare in para 17 stating that, “It is manifest from the judgments of the Apex Court relied on by learned senior counsel as cited above, the false implication of the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes basing on general and omnibus allegations, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. In the instant case, the relatives of A-1 i.e. A-2 to A-4 have been roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations and without any specific instances of their involvement in the alleged offences deserves to be quashed to avoid the rigor of undergoing trial.”
Frankly enough, the Bench then holds in para 18 that, “For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that from the averments of the complaint, F.I.R., charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses apparently there is no sufficient to material prima facie to proceed against the petitioners /A-2 to A-4 for the alleged offences.”
Quite candidly, the Bench then also maintained in para 19 that, “Therefore, this Court is of the view that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners herein would certainly amount to abuse of process of law. It is, therefore, considered as fit cases to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash further proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4.”
Finally, the Bench then aptly concludes by holding in para 20 that, “In the result, both the criminal petitions are allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 respectively in P.R.C.No.123 of 2013 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.”
In essence, what the Telangana High Court has ruled in this leading case is a clear pointer of what is most notably pointed out also that the false implication of the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes based on general and omnibus allegations, if left unchecked would result in gross misuse of the process of law. It is really high time and Centre must also now step forward and insert adequate safeguards in penal laws to ensure that the laws meant for ensuring the safety of women does not become a potent instrument to harass, humiliate and harangue the husband and his relatives as we see so very often which the Telangana High Court has so very forthrightly, firmly and finally pointed out in this case also! There can certainly be no more dilly dallying anymore on this now!
