The Apex Court has quashed a dowry harassment case filed by a woman against her in-laws, stating she "clearly wanted to wreak vengeance" & allowing criminal proceedings to continue would result in patent injustice.
A 3-judge bench of justices Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar & SVN Bhatti said given the totality of facts & circumstances, it was of the considered opinion that the woman's allegations against her in-laws are wholly insufficient and, prima facie, do not make out a case against them.
The Supreme Court said, "She clearly wanted to wreak vengeance against her in-laws... The allegations are so far-fetched & improbable that no prudent person can conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against them ... Permitting the criminal process to go on against the appellants in such a situation would, therefore, result in clear & patent injustice".
The SC's judgement came on a plea against an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which refused to quash the proceedings against the woman's former brothers-in-law & mother-in-law.
The woman, a teacher by profession, had married in the year 2007. The husband, however, secured a decree of divorce dissolving their marriage.
Prior to the filing of the divorce petition by the husband, the woman made a written complaint to the police, levelling several allegations against her husband & in-laws.
In response to the complaint, police filed an FIR against them under Indian Penal Code section 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) & sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The Supreme Court said the allegations levelled by the woman are mostly general & omnibus in nature, without any specific details as to how & when her brothers-in-law & mother-in-law, who lived in different cities altogether, subjected her to harassment for dowry.
It said most damaging to the woman's case is the fact that she did nothing whatsoever after leaving her matrimonial home in Feb 2009, & filed a complaint in the year 2013 alleging dowry harassment, just before her husband instituted divorce proceedings.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the LatestLaws staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Source Link
Picture Source :
