Recently, the Madhya Pradesh HC ruled that in cases of dowry if the active involvement of family members is not proved, then cognizance of the matter against them would not be justified.
The bench of Justice Rajendra Kumar Verma was dealing with the petition filed for quashing of FIR registered under Section 498-A, 323/34 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 along with the subsequent proceedings pending before the Family Court.
In this case, the complainant woman lodged the FIR that her marriage was solemnized with the son of petitioner no.1 and 2 (father and mother of the husband) .
She lived with her in-laws and after her marriage, her in-laws and her husband have harassed her and demanded Rs.10 Lacs as dowry at various occasions.
They taunted her and harassed her and they were constantly pressurizing her for taking dowry from her parents.
Mr. Deeptanshu Shukla, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that The FIR, in the given facts and circumstances is having no ingredient of Section 498-A and 323 of IPC.
It was submitted that in the marriage of the complainant and son, parents of both the parties have born out 50-50% of the amount incurred in the marriage and this fact was mentioned in the affidavit given by father of respondent no.2 – wife.
The bench observed that Respondent no.2 has made baseless allegations against the present petitioners in the FIR as well as in the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
The wife has lived with her in – laws for a long period. But such types of allegations have not been leveled by her to any one and no report was filed before. The first time, she has leveled the allegations filing the FIR against the petitioners almost 5 years later of her marriage.
High Court relied upon the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P. and another, where it was held that “a large number of family members had been included in FIR casually mentioning their names and contents did not disclose their active involvement, cognizance of matter against them would not be justified. Under such circumstances, cognizance would result in abuse of the judicial process.”
In view of the above, the bench allowed the petition.
