NC: 2025:KHC:20279
HC-KAR
Mಾನು ಆ ಾ ೆO ಈರಣ( 9ಾಚಪ$ ಕಮತ , @ ೈ ೆ ಕ9ೆಯನುE Aಾ5
!ೈ/ಾ: ೆ ೕ ೊಡುವಂ;ೆ U:V.ಾಗ ಆತನು ;ಾನು +ೊರಗ]ೆ ೆಲಸದ Tೕ/ೆ
+ೋFರುವS.ಾF ಮMೆ ೆ +ೋದ ನಂತರ ೕ AಾಡುವS.ಾF U:ಸುU>ದbನು.
ಆ ೆ{ಂ* ೆ AಾತMಾಡಲು |ೕ ಸಹ ೊm ರುವS*ಲ<.
*Mಾಂಕ:-26/02/2021 ರಂದು ಸಂqೆ 4-00 ಗಂvೆ ೆ ಈರಣ( 9ಾಚಪ$
ಕಮತ ನನE @ ೈ ೆ ಕ9ೆಯನುE Aಾ5 !ೈ/ಾ ಮMೆಯ < Cಷ HೇವMೆ Aಾ5
ಅಸWಸ}XಾFರು;ಾ>X ೆ. ಆ ೆಯನುE ಮ/ೆ<ೕಶWರಂ ೆ.V ಜನರ ಆಸ$;ೆ6 ೆ
Hೇ VರುವS.ಾF ಕೂಡ/ೇ ಬರುವಂ;ೆ U:Vದ Tೕ9ೆ ೆ Mಾನು ನಮP
ಸಂಬಂfಕರುಗಳ +ಾಗೂ ಊ ನ ಾ6ಮಸ}ರ qೊ;ೆಯ < ೆಂಗಳ ೆ ಬಂದು
ೆಳFನ qಾವ 4-30 ಗಂvೆ ೆ ೆ.V ಜನರ ಆಸ$;ೆ6 ೆ +ೋF Mೋಡ/ಾF ನನE ತಂF
!ೈ/ಾ •s;ೆ ಫಲ ಾ ಾಗ.ೇ ಮಧB 9ಾU6 12-00 ಗಂvೆಯ <
ಮೃತಪm ರು;ಾ>X ೆಂದು ೈದBರು U:Vದರು.
ನನE ತಂF !ೈ/ಾಳ HಾC ೆ ಆ ೆಯ ಗಂಡ ಈರಣ( 9ಾಚಪ$ ಕಮತ , Aಾವ
9ಾಚಪ$ +ೆL ಕಮತ , +ಾಗೂ Mಾ*N ೆ6ೕAಾ 9ಾಚಪ$ ಕಮತ ರವರುಗXೇ
NೕಡುU>ದb sರುಕುಳ*ಂದ ಮನV ೆ ೇqಾರು Aಾ5 ೊಂಡು ?ೕವನದ <
?ಗು¥ÉìಯನುE +ೊಂ* Cಷ HೇವMೆ Aಾ5 ಅತPಹ;ೆB Aಾ5 ೊಂ5ರುವSದು ಕಂಡು
ಬಂ*ರುತ>.ೆ. ಅದb ಂದ ;ಾವSಗಳQ Tೕಲ4ಂಡ 03 ಜನರುಗಳ Cರುದ‚ ಾನೂನು ೕU
ಕ6ಮ ೈ ೊಂಡು MಾBಯ .ೊರsV ೊಡ ೆ ೆಂದು ೇ: ೊಳQR;ೆ>ೕ ೆ."
The complaint is registered on 27.02.2021. The incident
happens on 26.02.2021. The allegation in the complaint is for
demand of dowry or torture that has been meted out by the
husband and the members of the family. The police conduct
investigation. The investigation leads to filing of a final report
i.e., the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as
obtaining in column No.17 is as follows:
NC: 2025:KHC:20279
HC-KAR
"ಅಂಕಣ -12 ರ < ನಮೂ*Vರುವ ಎ-1, ಎ-2 ಎ-3 ಆ9ೋrಗಳQ
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ ೈ ಾ ಾವ ೕ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹ*bನ, ಾB/ೇ
ಗುಟ ಹ:Rಯ, 5Mೇ ಮುಖB ರHೆ>ಯ <ರುವ ಮMೆ ನಂ.33/1 ರ ಾV ಾFರು;ಾ>9ೆ. ಎ-
1 ಆ9ೋrಯು Hಾo-1 ರವರ ಸ+ೋದ ಪ6ಕರಣದ ಮೃ;ೆ g6ೕಮU !ೈ/ಾ
ಬೂ*+ಾ, ರವರನುE *Mಾಂಕ: 21.12.2018 ರಂದು ಗದಗ ಪಟ ಣದ
ೆ.ಎ .ಆ .m.V 5 ೕ jಂ.ೆ ಇರುವ g6ೕ ಕುAಾರ ಂ ೇಶWರ ಾಠ!ಾ/ೆಯ <
ಗುರು j ಯರ ಸಮkಮ !ಾHೊ6ೕಕ> ಾF C ಾಹ Aಾ5 ೊಂ5ರು;ಾ>Mೆ.
ಎ-1 ಎ-2 ಮತು> ಎ-3 ಆ9ೋrಗಳQ ಮೃ;ೆಯ !ೈ/ಾ ಬೂ*+ಾ, ರವರ
ಮದು ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ < Hಾo-1 ರವ ಂದ ವರದo ೆ ಾF ಎ-1 ಆ9ೋr ೆ
ಎರಡುವ9ೆ ;ೋಲ ಬಂ ಾರದ ಆಭರಣಗಳನುE, +ಾಗೂ ಒಂದು ಲk ರೂ ಹಣವನುE
ಪ]ೆದು ೊಂ5ದುb, Hಾo-1 ರವರು ಸುAಾರು ಮೂರು ಲkರೂಗಳನುE ಖಚು2Aಾ5
ಮದು ೆ Aಾ5 ೊm ರು;ಾ>9ೆ.
ಮದು ೆ ನಂತರ ಮೃ;ೆ g6ೕಮU !ೈ/ಾ ಬೂ*+ಾ, ರವರು ಆ9ೋr-1
(ಮೃತಳ ಗಂಡ ಈರಣ( ), ಆ9ೋr-2 ( ಮೃತಳ Aಾವ 9ಾಚಪ$) +ಾಗೂ ಆ9ೋr-3
( ಮೃತಳ Mಾ*N ೆ6ೕಮ) ರವ9ೊಂ* ೆ Tೕಲ4ಂಡ CXಾಸದ < ಾಸ ಾFರು;ಾ>9ೆ.
ಎ-1 ಆ9ೋrಯು ಮೃ;ೆ !ೈ/ಾ ರವರನುE ಮದು ೆ ಾದ ಎರಡು UಂಗಳQ Aಾತ6
pೆMಾEF Mೋ5 ೊಂ5ದುb, ನಂತರ ಮೃ;ೆ !ೈ/ಾ ಬೂ*+ಾ, ರವ ೆ ಎ-2 ಮತು>
ಎ-3 C9ೋrಗಳQ AಾBm6@ೕNಯ ನ]ೆಸಲು ತವರು ಮMೆ`ಂದ ಐದು ಲk
ಹಣವನುE +ೆಚುiವ ವರದo ೆ ಾF ತರುವಂ;ೆ sರುಕುಳವನುE NೕಡುU>ದುb, ಎ-1
ಆ9ೋrಯು ಸಹ +ೆಚುiವ ವರದo ೆ ಾF ಮೃ;ೆ ೆ +ೊ]ೆಯುವSದು, ೈಯುBವSದು,
ಅನುAಾನಪಡುವ ಮೂಲಕ AಾನVಕ ಮತು> .ೈjಕ sರುಕುಳವನುE ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ. ಈ
ಬ ೆO ಮೃ;ೆಯು Hಾo-1 ರವ ೆ ಹಲ ಾರು ಾ U:V.ಾಗ. Hಾo-1 ರವರು Hಾo-
9, 10 ಮತು> ರವರುಗಳ ಸಮkಮ 9ಾ? ಪಂpಾ`U ಕೂಡ Aಾ5ಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ
ಆ9ೋrತರುಗ: ೆ UಳQವ: ೆ Nೕ5ರು;ಾ>9ೆ. ಆದರೂ ಕೂಡ ಎ-1, ಎ-2 ಮತು> ಎ-3
ಆ9ೋrಗಳQ ಮೃ;ೆ !ೈ/ಾ ಬೂ*+ಾ, ರವ ೆ +ೆಚುiವ ವರದo ೆ ಾF ಪ.ೇ
ಪ.ೇ AಾನVಕ ಾF ಮತು> .ೈjಕ ಾF sರುಕುಳ NೕಡುU>ದb ಾರಣ, ಆ9ೋrಗಳ
sರುಕುಳ*ಂದ ೇಸತು> *Mಾಂಕ.26-02-2021 ರಂದು ೆ: ೆO 10-25 ಗಂvೆಯ <
ಮಂಗಳ ರುನಗರ ೈ ಾ ಾವ ೕ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹ*bನ r.? ಹ:R ಯ
5Mೇ ಮುಖBರHೆ>ಯ <ರುವ ನಂ.33/1- ಮMೆಯ < Carbamate insecticide(
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20279
HC-KAR
s6„Mಾಶಕ) ನುE HೇCVದುb, ಮwಾBಹE 3-30 ಗಂಟ ೆ ಎ-1 ಆ9ೋrಯು ಮೃ;ೆ
!ೈ/ಾ ಬೂ*+ಾ, ರವರನುE ಮ/ೆ<ೕಶWರಂನ ೆ.V ಜನರ ಆಸ$;ೆ6 ೆ • ೆ;ೆ ಾF
.ಾಖ Vದುb, 9ಾU6 -9-00 ಗಂvೆ ೆ !ೈ/ಾ ಬೂ*+ಾ, ರವರು •s;ೆ
ಫಲ ಾ ಾಗ.ೇ ಮೃತಪm ರು;ಾ>9ೆ. ಎ-1 ಎ-2 ಮತು> ಎ-3 ಆ9ೋrಗಳQ ಮೃ;ೆ ೆ
+ೆಚುiವ ವರದo ೆ ಹಣ ೆ4 NೕಡುU>ದ.b AಾನVಕ ಮತು> .ೈjಕ sರುಕುಳ*ಂದ
s6„Mಾಶಕ CಷವನುE HೇCV. ಮೃತಪm ರುವSದು ಇದುವ9ೆ ೆ ಸಂಗ6jVದ
Hಾ...ಾ†wಾರಗ:ಂದ ಮತು> Hಾo.ಾರರ +ೇ: ೆಗ:ಂದ ದೃಡಪm ರುತ>.ೆ.
ಆದುದ ಂದ Tೕಲ4ಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ೕ;ಾB ಆ9ೋrತರುಗಳ Cರುದ‚ AಾನB
MಾB ಾಲಯ ೆ4 .ೋ‡ಾ9ೋಪ ಾ ಪm ಸ <Vರುತ>.ೆ."
A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would
indicate certain offences against the husband and not even a
semblance of offence against the petitioners herein for it to
become an offence under Section 304B of the IPC. Insofar as
the offence under Section 498A of the IPC, which deals with
cruelty on demand of dowry or Sections 3 and 4 with regard to
Dowry Prohibition Act. The narration is omnibus against the
other two, while particular acts alleged against the husband in
demand of dowry or torture meted out to the wife. The wife
commits suicide leaving behind a death note. The learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
Investigating Officer did not take note of the death note, which
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20279
HC-KAR
would have absolved all the accused in the crime. Be the
submission qua the death note as they are.
9. The afore-narrated complaint or the summary of
the charge sheet or even the statements rendered during the
course of investigation would nowhere point at the ingredients
of offence against these petitioners i.e., the father-in-law and
the sister-in-law.
10. It is an admitted fact that the sister-in-law stayed
elsewhere and she has never a resident along with the couple.
The allegation is that the sister-in-law demanded
Rs.5,00,000/-. The allegation is so vague that it does not
narrate as to when, where and what became of the demand.
Vaguely alleging the sister-in-law, who was admittedly a
resident elsewhere demanded money would not mean that it
would meet the ingredient of Section 498A or 304B of the IPC.
Insofar as the father-in-law is concerned, the father-in-law at
the relevant point in time was 80 years old and is now 82 years
old. It is contended that the father-in-law is not in a position to
move even. If that be the case, it is ununderstandable as to
how the father-in-law could meted out such torture that would
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20279
HC-KAR
become an offence under Section 304B or 498A of the IPC. All
the allegations as observed hereinabove are goaded against the
husband and omnibus, vague and sprinkling without content
against these petitioners - the father-in-law and the sister-in-
law.
11. It becomes apposite to refer to elucidation of law by
the Apex Court considering identical circumstance, both of
offences punishable under Section 304B and 498A of the IPC.
The Apex Court as held as follows in the following cases:
11.1. In the case of L. KRISHNA REDDY Vs. STATE
reported in (2014) 14 SCC 401, has held as follows:
"11. The court is neither a substitute nor an
adjunct of the prosecution. On the contrary, once a
case is presented to it by the prosecution, its
bounden duty is to sift through the material to
ascertain whether a prima facie case has been
established which would justify and merit the
prosecution of a person. The interest of a person
arraigned as an accused must also be kept in
perspective lest, on the basis of flippant or vague
or vindictive accusations, bereft of probative
evidence, the ordeals of a trial have to be
needlessly suffered and endured. We hasten to
clarify that we think the statements of the
complainant are those of an anguished father who
has lost his daughter due to the greed and cruelty
of his son-in-law. As we have already noted, the
husband has taken his own life possibly in
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20279
HC-KAR
remorse and repentance. The death of a child even to
avaricious parents is the worst conceivable punishment.
12. Since the prosecution would be an exercise in
futility it should be brought to a quick end; and this is
possible only if an order of discharge vis-à-vis the
parents who are the remaining accused is passed. This
is exactly what has transpired in the wisdom of the High
Court by means of the impugned order. We find no error
therein. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied)
11.2. In the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR VS. STATE OF
BIHAR reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, has held as follows:
"17. The abovementioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this Court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse of
Section 498-AIPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-
term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as
well as the accused. It is further manifest from the
said judgments that false implication by way of
general omnibus allegations made in the course of
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result
in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this
Court by way of its judgments has warned the
courts from proceeding against the relatives and
in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case
is made out against them.
Xxxxxx
21. Therefore, upon consideration of the
relevant circumstances and in the absence of any
specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it
would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go
through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and
omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20279
HC-KAR
where the relatives of the complainant's husband
are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted
by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial
leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars
upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore,
be discouraged.
(Emphasis supplied)
11.3. In the case of CHARAN SINGH ALIAS
CHARANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND reported
in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454, has held as follows:
"10. The conviction of the appellant is under
Sections 304B and 498A IPC raising presumption
regarding dowry death within seven years of marriage.
To appreciate the arguments raised by the learned
counsel for the parties, a perusal of
Section 304B and 498A IPC and Section 113B of
the Indian Evidence Act would be required. The same
are extracted hereinbelow:--
"304B. Dowry death.-- (1) Where the
death of a woman is caused by any burns or
bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under
normal circumstances within seven years of
her marriage and it is shown that soon
before her death she was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relative of her husband for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry, such death
shall be called "dowry death", and such
husband or relative shall be deemed to have
caused her death.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-
section, "dowry" shall have the same
meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20279
HC-KAR
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than seven years but
which may extend to imprisonment for life.
498-A. Husband or relative of husband of
a woman subjecting her to cruelty --
Whoever, being the husband or the relative
of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this
section, "cruelty" means --
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure
by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand.
113B. Presumption as to dowry death.--
When the question is whether a person has
committed the dowry death of a woman and
it is shown that soon before her death such
woman had been subjected by such person
to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall
presume that such person had caused the
dowry death.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this
section, "dowry death" shall have the same
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20279
HC-KAR
meaning as in Section 304-B of Penal Code,
1860 (45 of 1860)".
11. The interpretation of Sections 304B and 498A
IPC came up for consideration in Baijnath's case (supra).
The opinion was summed up in paras 25 to 27 thereof,
which are extracted below:--
"25. Whereas in the offence of dowry
death defined by Section 304-B of the Code,
the ingredients thereof are:
(i) death of the woman concerned is by
any burns or bodily injury or by any cause
other than in normal circumstances, and
(ii) is within seven years of her marriage,
and
(iii) that soon before her death, she was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of the husband for,
or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
The offence under Section 498-A of the
Code is attracted qua the husband or his
relative if she is subjected to cruelty. The
Explanation to this Section exposits "cruelty"
as:
(i) any wilful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical), or
(ii) harassment of the woman, where
such harassment is with a view to coercing
her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure
by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20279
HC-KAR
26. Patently thus, cruelty or harassment
of the lady by her husband or his relative for
or in connection with any demand for any
property or valuable security as a demand
for dowry or in connection therewith is the
common constituent of both the offences.
27. The expression "dowry" is ordained to
have the same meaning as in Section 2 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The
expression "cruelty", as explained, contains
in its expanse, apart from the conduct of the
tormentor, the consequences precipitated
thereby qua the lady subjected thereto. Be
that as it may, cruelty or harassment by the
husband or any relative of his for or in
connection with any demand of dowry, to
reiterate, is the gravamen of the two
offences."
12. As the aforesaid case was also pertaining to
dowry death, presumption under Section 113B of
the Indian Evidence Act was also discussed in detail in
paras 29 to 31 of the aforesaid judgment. The same are
extracted below:--
"29. Noticeably this presumption as
well is founded on the proof of cruelty or
harassment of the woman dead for or in
connection with any demand for dowry
by the person charged with the offence.
The presumption as to dowry death thus
would get activated only upon the proof
of the fact that the deceased lady had
been subjected to cruelty or harassment
for or in connection with any demand for
dowry by the accused and that too in
the reasonable contiguity of death. Such
a proof is thus the legislatively
mandated prerequisite to invoke the
otherwise statutorily ordained
presumption of commission of the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20279
HC-KAR
offence of dowry death by the person
charged therewith.
30. A conjoint reading of these three
provisions, thus predicate the burden of
the prosecution to unassailably
substantiate the ingredients of the two
offences by direct and convincing
evidence so as to avail the presumption
engrafted in Section 113-B of the Act
against the accused. Proof of cruelty or
harassment by the husband or his
relative or the person charged is thus
the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory
presumption, to draw the person
charged within the coils thereof. If the
prosecution fails to demonstrate by
cogent, coherent and persuasive
evidence to prove such fact, the person
accused of either of the above referred
offences cannot be held guilty by taking
refuge only of the presumption to cover
up the shortfall in proof.
31. The legislative primature of relieving
the prosecution of the rigour of the proof of
the often practically inaccessible recesses of
life within the guarded confines of a
matrimonial home and of replenishing the
consequential void, by according a
presumption against the person charged,
cannot be overeased to gloss over and
condone its failure to prove credibly, the
basic facts enumerated in the sections
involved, lest justice is the casualty".
13. A conjoint reading of Section 304B IPC and
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act with reference
to the presumption raised was discussed in para 32 of
the aforesaid judgment, which is extracted below:--
"32. This Court while often dwelling on
the scope and purport of Section 304-B of
the Code and Section 113-B of the Act have
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20279
HC-KAR
propounded that the presumption is
contingent on the fact that the prosecution
first spell out the ingredients of the offence
of Section 304-B as in Shindo v. State of
Punjab [Shindo v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11
SCC 517 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 394] and
echoed in Rajeev Kumar v. State of
Haryana [Rajeev Kumar v. State of
Haryana, (2013) 16 SCC 640 : (2014) 6 SCC
(Cri) 346]. In the latter pronouncement,
this Court propounded that one of the
essential ingredients of dowry death
under Section 304-B of the Code is that
the accused must have subjected the
woman to cruelty in connection with
demand for dowry soon before her
death and that this ingredient has to be
proved by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt and only then the
Court will presume that the accused has
committed the offence of dowry death
under Section 113-B of the Act. It
referred to with approval, the earlier decision
of this Court in K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla
Srinivasa Rao [K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla
Srinivasa Rao, (2003) 1 SCC 217 : 2003 SCC
(Cri) 271] to the effect that to attract the
provision of Section 304-B of the Code, one
of the main ingredients of the offence which
is required to be established is that "soon
before her death" she was subjected to
cruelty and harassment "in connection with
the demand for dowry".
14. With reference to the legal position as referred to
above, the matter is now required to be examined as to
whether the case in hand falls in the category where the
presumption can be raised against the appellant
relieving the prosecution from proving its case and
putting the onus on the accused/appellant.
15. The date of death of the deceased is 22.6.1995.
She was cremated on the same day. The stand taken by
the appellant was that the parents of the deceased were
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20279
HC-KAR
informed who were living about 290 kms. away.
However, they could not reach on time. It was further
submitted that the maternal grandmother and two
maternal uncles who were living at a distance of about
one furlong from the matrimonial residence of the
deceased when she died were present at the time of
cremation. They neither raised any issue nor did they
inform the police. Rather on the intervention of the
panchayat, they had taken all the dowry articles.
Xxxx
21. In the aforesaid evidence led by the
prosecution, none of the witnesses stated about
the cruelty or harassment to the deceased by the
appellant or any of his family members on account
of demand of dowry soon before the death or
otherwise. Rather harassment has not been
narrated by anyone. It is only certain oral
averments regarding demand of motorcycle and
land which is also much prior to the incident. The
aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution does not
fulfil the pre-requisites to invoke presumption
under Section 304B IPC or Section 113B of
the Indian Evidence Act. Even the ingredients of
Section 498A IPC are not made out for the same
reason as there is no evidence of cruelty and
harassment to the deceased soon before her
death.
Xxxx
23. On a collective appreciation of the evidence
led by the prosecution, we are of the considered
view that the prerequisites to raise presumption
under Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of
the Indian Evidence Act having not been fulfilled,
the conviction of the appellant cannot be justified.
Mere death of the deceased being unnatural in the
matrimonial home within seven years of marriage
will not be sufficient to convict the accused under
Section 304B and 498A IPC. The cause of death as
such is not known."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20279
HC-KAR
The afore-quoted judgments are an amalgam of
consideration the cases of offence punishable under Sections
304B and 498A of the IPC. Insofar as the offence under
Section 498A of the IPC as that is also the one that is alleged in
the charge sheet.
12. In the light of the complaint, the summary of the
charge sheet not pointing at any of the ingredients of the
offences either of 304B or 498A of the IPC, as the entire
allegation is goaded against the husband. If further trial is
permitted to be continued against these petitioners, the father-
in-law and the sister-in-law, would on the face of it become an
abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
13. The Apex Court in the case of GHANSHYAM SONI
Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) reported in 2025 SCC Online SC
13010, has held as follows:
"10. A perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations
made by the complainant are that in the year 1999, the
Appellant inflicted mental and physical cruelty upon her for
bringing insufficient dowry. The Complainant refers to few
instances of such atrocities, however the allegations are
generic, and rather ambiguous. The allegations against the
family members, who have been unfortunately roped in, is
that they used to instigate the Appellant husband to harass
the Complainant wife, and taunted the Complainant for not
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20279
HC-KAR
bringing enough dowry; however, there is no specific
incident of harassment or any evidence to that effect.
Similarly, the allegations against the five out of six sisters
that they used to insult the Complainant and demanded
dowry articles from her, and upon failure beat her up, but
there is not even a cursory mention of the incident. An
allegation has also been made against a tailor named
Bhagwat that he being a friend of the Appellant instigated
him against the Complainant, and was allegedly
instrumental in blowing his greed. Such allegations are
merely accusatory and contentious in nature, and do not
elaborate a concrete picture of what may have transpired.
For this reason alone, and that the evidence on record is
clearly inconsistent with the accusations, the version of the
Complainant seems implausible and unreliable. The
following observation in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana
Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Home2, fits
perfectly to the present scenario:
"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding
against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to
matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The
relatives of the husband should not be roped in on
the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific
instances of their involvement in the crime are
made out."
11. As regards the Appellant, the purportedly specific
allegations levelled against him are also obscure in nature.
Even if the allegations and the case of the prosecution is
taken at its face value, apart from the bald allegations
without any specifics of time, date or place, there is no
incriminating material found by the prosecution or rather
produced by the complainant to substantiate the ingredients
of "cruelty" under section 498A IPC, as recently observed in
the case of Jaydedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of
Gujarat3 and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh4.
The Complainant has admittedly failed to produce any
medical records or injury reports, x-ray reports, or any
witnesses to substantiate her allegations. We cannot ignore
the fact that the Complainant even withdrew her second
Complaint dt. 06.12.1999 six days later on 12.12.1999.
There is also no evidence to substantiate the purported
demand for dowry allegedly made by the Appellant or his
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20279
HC-KAR
family and the investigative agencies in their own prudence
have not added sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 to the chargesheet.
12. In this respect, the Sessions Court has applied its
judicial mind to the allegations in the FIR & the material on
record, and has rightly discharged the Appellants of the
offences under section 498A & 34 IPC. Notwithstanding the
said observation by the Sessions Court that the possibility of
false implication cannot be ruled out, the discharge of the
Appellant merely because the Complainant is a police officer
is erroneous and reflects poorly on the judicial decision
making, which must be strictly based on application of
judicial principles to the merits of the case. On the other
hand, the High Court vide the Impugned Order has
traversed one step further and overtly emphasised that
simply because the Complainant is a police officer, it cannot
be assumed that she could not have been a victim of cruelty
at the hands of her husband and in-laws. We agree with the
sensitive approach adopted by the High Court in
adjudicating the present case, however a judicial decision
cannot be blurred to the actual facts and circumstances of a
case. In this debate, it is only reasonable to re-iterate
that the Sessions Court in exercise of its revisionary
jurisdiction and the High Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, must
delve into the material on record to assess what the
Complainant has alleged and whether any offence is
made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
In the present case, such scrutiny of the allegations
in the FIR and the material on record reveals that
no prima facie is made out against the Appellant or
his family. It is also borne from the record that the
divorce decree of their marriage, has already been
passed, and the same has never been challenged by
the Complainant wife, and hence has attained finality.
Upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and
that the alleged incidents pertain to the year 1999
and since then the parties have moved on with their
respective lives, it would be unjust and unfair if the
Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of
a trial."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20279
HC-KAR
In that light, finding that there is no allegation that would
touch upon the ingredients of either Sections 304B and 498A of
the IPC or Dowry Prohibition Act against these two petitioners,
permitting further proceedings would become an abuse of the
process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following
ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The proceedings in S.C.No.742/2023 arising
out of crime No.17/2021 registered by
Vyalikaval Police Station, stands quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
JY
CT: BHK
