The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) filed against the former in-laws of a woman on allegations of cruelty and harassment.

A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose, PV Sanjay Kumar and SVN Bhatti was hearing appeals challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had refused to quash the proceedings against the woman’s former brothers-in-law and her mother-in-law.

The husband had earlier secured a decree of divorce that dissolved the marriage, although an appeal filed by the woman against the grant of divorce was pending before the High Court.

In the meantime, the woman made allegations of cruelty and eventually, a chargesheet was filed against all three accused citing offences under Section 498A of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The woman alleged cruelty, dowry harassment, and poor living conditions at her matrimonial home.

She also sent complaints to the Mumbai anti-corruption bureau and the Madhya Pradesh High Court Chief Justice against one of the brothers-in-law who had joined judicial service as a civil judge, a few months after the woman’s marriage to his brother.

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by the woman against her in-laws, noting that there were glaring inconsistencies and discrepancies in her version of events.

The Court noted that the woman had admittedly parted ways from her matrimonial home in 2009, but did not file a complaint against the in-laws until 2013, “just before her husband instituted divorce proceedings.”

On allegations against the judicial officer, the top court questioned why he would demand dowry from the complainant-woman, even if he were inclined to commit such an offence, when he was married to someone else.

Since the woman had also earlier confessed to making a vicious complaint against the judicial officer to the High Court, the top court concluded that her motives were not clean.

The Court also didn’t believe the allegations that the woman’s mother-in-law had taunted the woman by saying that since she wore a maxi dress, “she should be undressed and made to dance on the street.”

The Court termed this allegation “wholly insufficient to constitute cruelty in terms of Section 498A IPC.”

The appeals were, thus, allowed. The criminal complaint and proceedings against the appellants (in-laws) were quashed.

Case title: Abhishek vs State of Madhya Pradesh