15 days after marriage, demand for Bullet bike: Why Orissa High Court refused to drop dowry case against in-laws

“Specific allegations have been made regarding the demand for a Bullet motorcycle, cash of Rs 3 lakhs, and other household articles. There are also allegations regarding assault, abusive behaviour, humiliation, criminal intimidation, and forcible ouster of her from the matrimonial home,” the court said on May 22.

Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi said, prima facie allegations have been made attributing participation to the petitioners in the alleged acts of cruelty and harassment.

The order added that it is equally well settled that, at the stage of cognisance or while considering a prayer for quashing, the court is not expected to meticulously examine the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations nor undertake a roving enquiry into disputed questions of fact.

‘Soon after marriage, subjected to cruelty for dowry’

• This court finds that the allegations made in the FIR are not confined to bald or omnibus assertions alone.
• Prima facie allegations have been made attributing participation to the petitioners in the alleged acts of cruelty and harassment.
• A perusal of the FIR and the materials collected during the investigation reveals allegations that, soon after the marriage, the woman was subjected to continuous mental and physical cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry.
• The statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC also disclose allegations supporting the prosecution’s case regarding dowry demand and ill-treatment meted out to the woman.
• The Investigating Officer, upon completion of the investigation, found sufficient prima facie materials to submit a charge-sheet against the petitioners for the alleged offences.
• The contention of the petitioners that the allegations are vague and omnibus in nature cannot be accepted at this stage, since the FIR and the materials collected during the investigation contain assertions regarding the role allegedly played by the petitioners in the matrimonial dispute.
• Whether such allegations are ultimately proved by cogent and reliable evidence is a matter to be adjudicated during the course of trial upon appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in a proceeding under Section 528 of the BNSS.
• This court is of the considered view that prima facie offences under Sections 498-A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty)/294 (obscene acts and songs)/323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt)/506 (punishment for criminal intimidation)/406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust)/34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) IPC, read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are disclosed against the petitioners.
• It cannot be said that the allegations are so absurd, inherently improbable, or patently mala fide to warrant the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing the criminal proceeding at the threshold.

‘For quashing, materials required to taken at face value’

• The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the allegations made in the FIR and the materials collected during the investigation are omnibus and general in nature and do not disclose any specific overt act against the present petitioners so as to justify continuation of the criminal proceeding against them.
• It has also been contended that the magistrate has mechanically taken cognisance without the proper application of the judicial mind.
• Before adverting to the rival submissions, it is apposite to note that the scope of interference by this court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is limited.
• It is further well settled that, while considering an application for quashing, the allegations made in the FIR, charge-sheet, and accompanying materials are required to be taken at their face value in order to ascertain whether the ingredients constituting the alleged offences are prima facie made out.
• Defence pleas raised by the accused persons and disputed factual aspects ordinarily cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
• The settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, and subsequent decisions.
• Where it has been held that the power of quashing is to be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection, and that the court, at such stage, is not expected to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact.

Case of dowry demand and cruelty

The matter arose from an FIR filed by a woman who married a man in September 2023. According to the complainant, at the time of marriage, her family members gave dowry in the form of 18 tolas of gold, 3 kgs of silver, household articles such as a Godrej almirah, washing machine, utensils, and a sum of Rs 10 lakhs in cash.

It was alleged that, after about 15 days of marriage, her husband and his family members allegedly started demanding further dowry in the shape of a Bullet motorcycle and cash of Rs 3 lakh, besides a bed, a television, and a flat, and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty.

In November 2023, it was alleged that her uncle and aunt visited her matrimonial home when the accused persons abused and threatened her for not fulfilling the dowry demands. In December 2023, her mother-in-law was said to have assaulted her by holding her neck, and her husband allegedly attempted to assault her with a hot iron tawa, which came in contact with her hand and caused burn injuries, whereafter she was driven out of the house with threats to her life.

It was further alleged that in January 2024, when her parents, uncle, and aunt went to her matrimonial house to intervene, the accused persons refused to keep her, abused them in filthy language, and the husband allegedly pulled her hair in front of everyone and threatened to kill her.

On these allegations, the FIR was registered in April, 2024 under Sections 498-A/294/323/506/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioners, including in-laws and relatives, moved the high court to quash the proceedings and cognisance order passed by the trial court.