10-day marriage, ‘bald allegations’: Why Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a dowry case against a man’s parents

The high court also pointed out that it would be unfair if the man’s parents were forced to go through the tribulations of a trial based on the general and omnibus allegations.

“The petitioners cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial,” the court noted while quashing the FIR and the criminal proceedings arising from it against the parents.

‘Marriage lasted around 10 days’

• It was placed on record that the marriage was solemnised on February 13, 2024, and immediately after the same, the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the woman allegedly started harassing her physically and mentally by using filthy language and demanding dowry.
• The woman further claimed that her parents had given several items in dowry as per the demand of the petitioners, but the latter were not satisfied.
• It was alleged that the petitioners started raising demands of a four-wheeler, an AC, a gold chain of two tolas, a ring, Rs 5 lakh cash and threatened the woman not to come to the matrimonial home without these articles.
• It was further alleged that the father-in-law also abused the woman’s father over the telephone.
• The woman also alleged that on February 16, 2024, she was taken to the matrimonial home by her husband. However, after four days, the petitioners started abusing her for the demand of dowry and beating her.
• The woman mentioned that she left the matrimonial home on February 22, 2024, and since then she has been residing in her parents’ house.

Justice Vinay Saraf found that bald and omnibus allegations were levelled against the woman’s father-in-law and mother-in-law.

‘Bald allegations’

• The high court found that bald and omnibus allegations were levelled against the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the woman.
• It was further noted that no credible evidence was collected to prosecute close relatives of the man, and in the absence of any such material, no one can be prosecuted.
• The statements recorded during the investigation are just a reproduction of the FIR, and in the absence of specific allegations against the petitioners, they cannot be put to trial.
• The FIR and the proceedings arising out of it against the man’s parents are quashed.
• However, the proceedings against the woman’s husband should be continued.

‘No reason to continue criminal trial’

• Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Baboo Ji Chourasia argued that the woman’s husband and his family members have been implicated in the present matter only based on the omnibus allegations.
• Chourasia further submitted that there is no sufficient evidence and allegations available against the woman’s mother-in-law and father-in-law to put them on trial.
• He further submitted that the plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet papers indicates that the allegations levelled against the relatives of the husband are quite vague and general.
• There are no specific instances of criminal conduct stated in the FIR against the petitioners, and no material in the chargesheet can be attributed to them.
• He further submitted that there is nothing on record to continue the criminal trial against the husband’s close relatives.

State opposes plea

• Representing the state, advocate Jitendra Shrivastava submitted that there are enough allegations against all the petitioners, and during the trial, the allegations can be proved.
• Shrivastava further submitted that the petitioners actively participated in the criminal act, and all of them were involved in causing cruelty and harassment to the woman.