It is definitely a matter of utmost significance to note that while ruling in a dowry harassment case, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled PV Krishnabhat & Anr vs The State of Karnataka & Ors in Criminal Appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 2966/2024 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction that was pronounced as recently as on January 15, 2025 has underscored in no uncertain terms the dire need for adopting a very careful and cautious approach in cases pertaining to dowry harassment allegations to prevent the gross misuse of the law. It is known all too well by one and all that while these provisions are intended to protect women from cruelty and dowry-related abuse, the top court warned that they should not be exploited to settle personal scores or pursue ulterior motives. We need to note that a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed a criminal appeal that had been filed by a man and his parents to quash a criminal case that had been initially lodged under Section 498-A, 504, 506 of IPC, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on a complaint that had been filed by his wife.
It came as no wonder that the Apex Court quashed the criminal proceedings holding the allegations against the appellants were devoid of merit, manifestly frivolous and failed to disclose a prima facie case. The top court minced absolutely just no words to hold that, “The continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in a miscarriage of justice.” Very rightly so!
By all accounts, it is high time and those who foist false cases on men must be now not only made to pay huge compensation to the men and his family but they should be jailed also for at least few years so that wife, her parents and relatives stop abusing law most boldly, brutally, blindly, baselessly and without any fear of being prosecuted, punished or penalized for falsely foisting criminal cases on men and his parents and relatives! It brooks no more delay any longer now and Centre definitely must without fail swing into action most promptly in making further requisite changes even in the new revised criminal penal laws!
At the very outset, this progressive, pertinent, pragmatic, peculiar and persuasive judgment authored by a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr Justice Sandeep Mehta sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “The appellants in the appeal arising from SLP(Crl) No. 1754 of 2024 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, and the appellant in the appeal arising from SLP(Crl) No. 2966 of 2024 is the husband of the complainant.”
As we see, the Bench observes in para 3 that, “These appeals arise from criminal proceedings initiated under Section 498-A, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC), Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (SC/ST Act) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act). The appellants had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them. The High Court, after evaluating the submissions and materials on record, in its order dated 15.09.2023, partly allowed the petition by quashing proceedings under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act. However, it refused to quash the criminal proceedings concerning Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the appellants have now approached this Court, challenging the High Court’s refusal to quash these proceedings.”
Delving deeper, the Bench then points out aptly in para 4 stating that, “Upon the complaint dated 10.02.2019, made by the complainant, FIR in Crime No. 82/2019 was registered against the appellants for the offences under sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC ; sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act. Chargesheet was filed against all the three appellants and subsequently, the Trial Court vide order dated 20.09.2019 took cognizance in the case and issued process against the appellants.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 5 while elaborating on the facts of the case mentioning that, “The facts of the case reveal that the complainant had alleged cruelty and harassment at the hands of the appellants. The complainant alleged that at the time of marriage, a swift car, a gold chain of 80 grams, a ring and a bracelet weighing about 50 grams, among other gifts were given and the marriage was performed at an expense of Rs.45,00,000/-. She claimed that she belonged to a scheduled cast, while the husband belonged to the Brahmin caste and that they fell in love with each other and thereafter got married. She further claimed that her father had paid several amounts to the husband for rent, his foreign travels, etc. upon demands made by him. It is also alleged that he was addicted to alcohol and drugs, and used to mentally harass her. Further, the in-laws would also harass her and make caste-based remarks whenever they used to visit them in Bangalore, where the couple was residing.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 6 disclosing that, “Appellants approached the High Court through Criminal Petition No. 1910/2020 seeking setting aside of the cognizance order dated 20.09.2019 and quashing of the entire proceedings in the Spl.CC No. 1061/2019 arising out of Crime No. 82/2019.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 7 that, “The High Court, while considering the petition to quash the criminal proceeding, partly allowed the petition. The Court found that the complaint contained allegations of cruelty and dowry demands, which warranted further examination at trial. It held that the materials on record disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed with the case under these provisions, as the allegations made by the complainant could not be dismissed as entirely baseless at that stage.”
Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 8 that, “However, the High Court also noted that the allegations against the father-in-law and mother-in-law were largely general and lacked specificity. Despite this, it chose not to quash the proceedings against them under Section 498-A of the IPC, reasoning that the allegations required further scrutiny at trial. Similarly, the High Court observed that while the husband was alleged to have committed acts of cruelty, the overall relationship dynamics, including their love marriage and initial harmonious years, needed to be assessed during the trial. Thus, the High Court concluded that a prima facie case was made out for the continuance of proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.”
As things stands, the Bench then specifies in para 9 stating that, “We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent-State. Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4.”
It cannot be lost on us that the Bench brings out in para 12 observing that, “It has been brought to the notice of this Court, through placing on record additional facts and documents, that Court of II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court at Mysuru has allowed the divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband, through an order dated 19.08.2023. The Family Court has passed the decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty. It has been held that the complainant herein has made false allegations regarding the gifting of a car during marriage and extending of financial help by her father for the husband’s foreign trips. It has also been observed by the Family Court that from the evidence put before it, it is conclusive that the allegations of the husband being a drug addict and a sex maniac have been made only to take unreasonable advantage in the divorce as well as the criminal proceedings. The Family Court has concluded that the wife (complainant herein) has made several bald and baseless allegations against the husband and thereby treated the husband (appellant-accused herein) with cruelty, and thus granted a decree of divorce on the said grounds.”
Notably and quite frankly, the Bench pointed out in para 13 stating that, “After a thorough consideration of the submissions and the materials placed on record, we find that the allegations against the father-in-law and mother-in-law are indeed general and lacked specificity. The complainant has not provided any concrete details of dowry demands or acts of cruelty attributable to them. The admitted fact of their separate residence further weakens the complainant’s case against them. In the absence of prima facie evidence to establish their involvement in the alleged offenses, the proceedings against the father-in-law and mother-in-law cannot be sustained.”
Frankly speaking, it cannot be glossed over that the Bench points out in para 14 stating that, “Regarding the husband, it is evident that the allegations against him are similarly vague and unsubstantiated. The complainant has made generalized accusations without furnishing specific instances of misconduct. No specific allegations and neither any material have come on record to show a prima facie commission of the alleged offences of cruelty and dowry demand. The couple had a love marriage and experienced a blissful relationship during the initial years of their marriage, as is admitted on record. This, coupled with the lack of material evidence to support the allegations, leads to the conclusion that no prima facie case of cruelty or dowry demand is made out against the husband as well. Criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue in the absence of sufficient evidence to prima facie establish the commission of an offence.”
More to the point, the Bench clearly holds in para 15 that, “Further, as is evident from the record, the marriage between the parties has been dissolved, with categorical findings regarding cruelty meted out by the complainant against the appellant-husband. The allegations made in the criminal complaint, regarding dowry demand, cruelty, and harassment have all been held to be baseless, false and frivolous. Though these are separate proceedings, but findings regarding the truth and veracity of such serious allegations, as have been made by the complainant herein, become relevant in order to do justice and avoid misuse of criminal justice system. The Family Court has made categorical findings to hold that the allegations are false and nothing has been produced to or prove any merit in the allegations. Even in the criminal proceedings impugned before us, nothing has come on record to show commission of these alleged acts, even on a prima facie analysis. Once it has been held that there is no merit or truthfulness to the allegations made, then criminal proceedings on the very same allegations cannot be allowed to continue and propagate misuse of the criminal justice system.”
Most significantly and most commendably, the Bench encapsulates in para 16 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “Criminal law should not be used as a tool for harassment or vendetta. The allegations in a criminal complaint must be scrutinized with care to ensure that they disclose a prima facie case before subjecting individuals to the rigors of a criminal trial. The cases involving allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC and the DP Act often require a careful and cautious approach to prevent misuse of the law. While the provisions are intended to protect women from cruelty and dowry harassment, they should not be used to settle personal scores or pursue ulterior motives.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 17 that, “In the present case, the allegations against the appellants were devoid of merit, manifestly frivolous and fail to disclose a prima facie case. The continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in a miscarriage of justice.”
As a corollary, the Bench then directs in para 18 holding that, “Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act against all the appellants are quashed.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 19 that, “Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”
In sum, we thus see that the Apex Court has made it indubitably clear in this notable judgment that it will not allow dowry cases to be misused to settle personal scores. We see in this leading case that the top court was absolutely clear in holding that the allegations against the appellants were devoid of merit, manifestly frivolous and fail to disclose a prima facie case. The criminal cases that were foisted against all the appellants were thus very rightly quashed by the Apex Court. No denying or disputing it!
Author Bio
