Supreme Court: Laws Intended To Protect Women From Cruelty & Dowry Harassment Shouldn't Be Misused To Settle Personal Scores

 Criminal law should not be used as a tool for

harassment or vendetta. The allegations in a criminal

complaint must be scrutinized with care to ensure

that they disclose a prima facie case before subjecting

individuals to the rigors of a criminal trial. The cases

involving allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC

and the DP Act often require a careful and cautious

approach to prevent misuse of the law. While the

provisions are intended to protect women from

cruelty and dowry harassment, they should not be

used to settle personal scores or pursue ulterior

motives. {Para 16}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(ARISING FROM SLP (CRL.) NO.1754/2024)

P.V. KRISHNABHAT & ANR Vs  THE STATE OF

KARNATAKA & ORS.

Dated: JANUARY 15, 2025.

 O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants in the appeal arising from SLP(Crl) No.

1754 of 2024 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law

of the complainant, and the appellant in the appeal

arising from SLP(Crl) No. 2966 of 2024 is the

husband of the complainant.

3. These appeals arise from criminal proceedings

initiated under Section 498-A, 504, 506 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860,1 Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)

of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,2 and Sections 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.3 The

appellants had approached the High Court seeking

quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated

against them. The High Court, after evaluating the

submissions and materials on record, in its order

dated 15.09.2023, partly allowed the petition by

quashing proceedings under Sections 504 and 506 of

the IPC, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the

SC/ST Act. However, it refused to quash the criminal

proceedings concerning Section 498-A of the IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. Dissatisfied with this

outcome, the appellants have now approached this

Court, challenging the High Court's refusal to quash

these proceedings.

4. Upon the complaint dated 10.02.2019, made by the

complainant, FIR in Crime No. 82/2019 was

registered against the appellants for the offences

under sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC ; sections 3 and 4

of DP Act, and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST

1

IPC

2 SC/ST Act

3 DP Act

SLP(CRL.) NO.1754 OF 2024 ETC. 3

Act. Chargesheet was filed against all the three

appellants and subsequently, the Trial Court vide

order dated 20.09.2019 took cognizance in the case

and issued process against the appellants.

5. The facts of the case reveal that the complainant had

alleged cruelty and harassment at the hands of the

appellants. The complainant alleged that that at the

time of marriage, a swift car, a gold chain of 80

grams, a ring and a bracelet weighing about 50

grams, among other gifts were given and the marriage

was performed at an expense of Rs.45,00,000/-. She

claimed that she belonged to a scheduled cast, while

the husband belonged to the Brahmin caste and that

they fell in love with each other and thereafter got

married. She further claimed that her father had paid

several amounts to the husband for rent, his foreign

travels, etc. upon demands made by him. It is also

alleged that he was addicted to alcohol and drugs,

and used to mentally harass her. Further, the in-laws

would also harass her and make caste-based

remarks whenever they used to visit them in

Bangalore, where the couple was residing.

6. Appellants approached the High Court through

Criminal Petition No. 1910/2020 seeking setting

aside of the cognizance order dated 20.09.2019 and

quashing of the entire proceedings in the Spl.CC No.

1061/2019 arising out of Crime No. 82/2019.

7. The High Court, while considering the petition to

quash the criminal proceeding, partly allowed the

petition. The Court found that the complaint

contained allegations of cruelty and dowry demands,

which warranted further examination at trial. It held

that the materials on record disclosed sufficient

grounds to proceed with the case under these

provisions, as the allegations made by the

complainant could not be dismissed as entirely

baseless at that stage.

8. However, the High Court also noted that the

allegations against the father-in-law and mother-inlaw were largely general and lacked specificity.

Despite this, it chose not to quash the proceedings

against them under Section 498-A of the IPC,

reasoning that the allegations required further

scrutiny at trial. Similarly, the High Court observed

that while the husband was alleged to have

committed acts of cruelty, the overall relationship

dynamics, including their love marriage and initial

harmonious years, needed to be assessed during the

trial. Thus, the High Court concluded that a prima

facie case was made out for the continuance of

proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC and

sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and

the respondent-State. Despite service of notice, no

one has put in appearance on behalf of the

respondents 2 to 4.

10. Before this Court, the appellants have emphasised

that the criminal proceedings against them are

baseless and constitute an abuse of the process of

law. It is submitted that the father-in-law and

mother-in-law of the complainant resided separately

from the couple, a fact that was admitted by the

complainant herself. This separation, they contend,

negated any reasonable possibility of their

involvement in the alleged acts of cruelty or dowry

demands. Furthermore, they have submitted that the

allegations made against them were general and

omnibus in nature, lacking any specific instances of

misconduct or unlawful demands. The appellants

also pointed out that neither the complaint nor the

chargesheet contained material evidence that could

substantiate the allegations against the parents-inlaw.

11. As for the husband, it has been argued that the

allegations against him were equally vague and

devoid of substantive evidence. It has been argued

that the complainant and her husband had a love

marriage and enjoyed a harmonious relationship for

the first two years of their married life. This, they

submit, undermined the complainant's allegations of

cruelty and harassment. Further, they submitted

that the case has been filed as a counter blast and

owing to the failure of the marriage between the

parties. Moreover, it was submitted that the absence

of any specific evidence in the record that could

indicate acts of cruelty or dowry demands on the part

of the husband. The appellants contended that the

continuation of criminal proceedings against the

husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law in the

absence of prima facie evidence amounted to

harassment and would cause irreparable harm to

their reputation and dignity.

12. It has been brought to the notice of this Court,

through placing on record additional facts and

documents, that Court of II Addl.Principal Judge,

Family Court at Mysuru has allowed the divorce

petition filed by the appellant-husband, through an

order dated 19.08.2023. The Family Court has

passed the decree of divorce on the grounds of

cruelty. It has been held that the complainant herein

has made false allegations regarding the gifting of a

car during marriage and extending of financial help

by her father for the husband’s foreign trips. It has

also been observed by the Family Court that from the

evidence put before it, it is conclusive that the

allegations of the husband being a drug addict and a

sex maniac have been made only to take

unreasonable advantage in the divorce as well as the

criminal proceedings. The Family Court has

concluded that the wife (complainant herein) has

made several bald and baseless allegations against

the husband and thereby treated the husband

(appellant-accused herein) with cruelty, and thus

granted a decree of divorce on the said grounds.

13. After a thorough consideration of the submissions

and the materials placed on record, we find that the

allegations against the father-in-law and mother-inlaw are indeed general and lacked specificity. The

complainant has not provided any concrete details of

dowry demands or acts of cruelty attributable to

them. The admitted fact of their separate residence

further weakens the complainant's case against

them. In the absence of prima facie evidence to

establish their involvement in the alleged offenses,

the proceedings against the father-in-law and

mother-in-law cannot be sustained.

14. Regarding the husband, it is evident that the

allegations against him are similarly vague and

unsubstantiated. The complainant has made

generalized accusations without furnishing specific

instances of misconduct. No specific allegations and

neither any material have come on record to show a

prima facie commission of the alleged offences of

cruelty and dowry demand. The couple had a love

marriage and experienced a blissful relationship

during the initial years of their marriage, as is

admitted on record. This, coupled with the lack of

material evidence to support the allegations, leads to

the conclusion that no prima facie case of cruelty or

dowry demand is made out against the husband as

well. Criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to

continue in the absence of sufficient evidence to

prima facie establish the commission of an offense.

15. Further, as is evident from the record, the marriage

between the parties has been dissolved, with

categorical findings regarding cruelty meted out by

the complainant against the appellant-husband. The

allegations made in the criminal complaint, regarding

dowry demand, cruelty, and harassment have all

been held to be baseless, false and frivolous. Though,

these are separate proceedings, but findings

regarding the truth and veracity of such serious

allegations, as have been made by the complainant

herein, become relevant in order to do justice and

avoid misuse of criminal justice system. The Family

Court has made categorical findings to hold that the

allegations are false and nothing has been produced

to or prove any merit in the allegations. Even in the

criminal proceedings impugned before us, nothing

has come on record to show commission of these

alleged acts, even on a prima facie analysis. Once it

has been held that there is no merit or truthfulness

to the allegations made, then criminal proceedings on

the very same allegations cannot be allowed to

continue and propagate misuse of the criminal

justice system.

16. Criminal law should not be used as a tool for

harassment or vendetta. The allegations in a criminal

complaint must be scrutinized with care to ensure

that they disclose a prima facie case before subjecting

individuals to the rigors of a criminal trial. The cases

involving allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC

and the DP Act often require a careful and cautious

approach to prevent misuse of the law. While the

provisions are intended to protect women from

cruelty and dowry harassment, they should not be

used to settle personal scores or pursue ulterior

motives.

17. In the present case, the allegations against the

appellants were devoid of merit, manifestly frivolous

and fail to disclose a prima facie case. The

continuation of criminal proceedings in such

circumstances would amount to an abuse of the

process of law and result in a miscarriage of justice.

18. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the criminal

proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act against all the

appellants are quashed.

19. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

...........................,J.

 (VIKRAM NATH)

...........................,J.

 (SANDEEP MEHTA)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 15, 2025.

 

Print Page