Madhya Pradesh High Court quashes vague dowry allegations against family members

In a significant decision, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh quashed the criminal proceedings against family members of Ajay Sharma, accused under sections 498-A and 323 of the IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on grounds that vague allegations were levied against the family members of the husband. The decision came during the hearing of Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 48458 of 2021, presided over by Hon’ble Justice Vinay Saraf.

Ajay Sharma, the primary accused, and his family members—Meena Sharma (mother), Priyanka Sharma (sister), Amrat Lal (uncle), and Sangeeta (aunt)—were implicated in a case filed by Bhuri Bai @ Bhawna Sharma, Ajay Sharma’s wife. The FIR was lodged at Police Station Road, Morena, alleging dowry harassment and physical and mental abuse.

During the proceedings, the Counsel for the petitioners (accused) argued that the allegations against the family members were based on vague and omnibus. It was pointed out that specific allegations were only directed at Ajay Sharma, the husband, while the other family members were implicated without substantial evidence.

The Court relied on the order passed by this Court in the matter of Himanshu Sharma and others Vs. The state of M.P. And Others M.Cr.C.No.55983 of 2023 on 13.05.2024 and observed that the present case was also identical to that of Himanshu Sharma and Others.

Justice Saraf emphasized that the continuation of criminal proceedings without specific allegations and evidence was unwarranted by following several precedents.

The Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2010 (7) SCC 667 criticized the tendency of implicating all the close relatives of the husband in the criminal case and after considering the allegations levelled in the FIR, quashed the prosecution against close relatives of the husband. The relevant paragraphs 32,33,34,35 & 36 of the judgment explain, “It is noted that many complaints under Section 498-A IPC, related to dowry harassment, are filed impulsively and sometimes with ulterior motives, though there is also a rise in genuine cases. Lawyers have a critical role in ensuring that such complaints are not exaggerated and should strive for amicable resolutions to maintain social harmony. The serious consequences of these complaints, including the significant hardship they can cause all parties involved, are often not fully understood by the complainants. The pursuit of justice in these cases is challenging, and courts must carefully scrutinize allegations, especially those involving distant relatives. Protracted criminal trials can lead to increased bitterness and make reconciliation more difficult, causing substantial and prolonged suffering.”

The Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. vs. State of U.P. And Ors. (2012) 10 SCC 741 has quashed a FIR lodged against the sister-in-law and brother-in-law and other close relatives of the husband and the relevant paragraph 21,27 & 28 of the judgment explain, “In the case of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors., the Court observed that matrimonial disputes, often arising from minor conflicts, can escalate into serious legal matters involving family members who might otherwise mediate and help resolve the issues. The Court noted that such disputes should be resolved amicably rather than through protracted legal battles, which can consume the parties’ time and energy, affecting their lives negatively. In the current matter, the High Court was criticized for not considering whether the trial court had proper jurisdiction and whether it was appropriate to proceed with the trial given the FIR did not establish a prima facie case against the appellants. The FIR lacked specific allegations of physical or mental torture and did not provide a clear basis for implicating the appellants, who were only mentioned in passing. As a result, it was deemed unjust to subject them to a lengthy trial process. The Court decided to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellants, Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra since the FIR did not present sufficient evidence to constitute an offense under the relevant sections of law. The general allegations against them were not substantiated by specific incidents or motivations. Consequently, the High Court’s order was overturned, and the appeal was allowed.”

The court further considered the recent Supreme Court ruling in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 759, where it was held that the FIR in matrimonial disputes should not be used to harass the husband’s family without genuine cause. The judgment stressed the need for a pragmatic approach, avoiding protracted trials that strain familial relationships and cause unnecessary suffering.

The High Court concluded that the FIR lodged against the family members lacked specific allegations and substantive evidence. The court quashed the proceedings against Meena Sharma, Priyanka Sharma, Amrat Lal, and Sangeeta, while the trial against Ajay Sharma, the husband, will continue.